Valencia civil court denies return of €300 deposit for shelves after missed deadline

A civil court in Valencia denied Inés Ferrer’s request for the return of a €300 deposit she paid Daniel Soler for shelves. The court found that Soler had not proved his claim that Ferrer agreed to extend the delivery deadline, but said Ferrer had not established that the deposit remained due to her.

The decision turned on a distinction between missing the original deadline and proving what happened afterward. The court made no finding that the shelves were later delivered or that the deposit was repaid, and ordered no payment by either party.

The signed agreement was the clearest record of the original bargain: a €600 shelving order, a €300 deposit and delivery by 10 May. The court accepted those terms and found that delivery by the written deadline was not established.

Soler bore the burden of proving his claimed change to 24 May. His account of a phone agreement was disputed and lacked detail or a supporting record. Ferrer’s message that she could wait longer showed that delay had been discussed, but did not establish agreement to that particular date.

That did not resolve Ferrer’s separate claim for repayment. The court said the record did not establish whether the shelves were delivered later or the deposit returned. The absence of a delivery or repayment record was not itself proof that neither had occurred.

The judgment also said a remedy must match the harm shown and that the significance and circumstances of a failure matter. On the evidence presented, the missed deadline alone did not establish that the €300 remained payable to Ferrer.

Ferrer relied on the signed order and said the shelves had not arrived by 10 May. She disputed agreeing to 24 May and argued that her message about waiting longer did not specify a new deadline.

Soler said Ferrer had agreed to 24 May by phone and had then said she could wait longer before asking for the deposit. He said he was ready to do the work and believed he would have delivered if she had not requested the money back.

The court treated Soler’s statements as submissions rather than independent records. It also said his readiness to work was not proof that delivery occurred.

The dispute arose from an order for shelves under which Ferrer paid half the €600 price upfront. Both sides accepted that the original 10 May delivery date was missed, but disagreed about whether a later date had been agreed.

Ferrer’s side acknowledged that the record did not establish later delivery or repayment and offered no further evidence on those matters. The judgment is limited to that record: it rejects the deposit claim without deciding that Soler completed the order or returned the money.