Valencia civil court denies repayment over €120 extra charge for wardrobe assembly

The civil court in Valencia denied Nuria Beltrán’s claim for repayment of a disputed €120 wardrobe-assembly charge and rejected her request at the hearing to cancel the entire €300 transaction. It awarded no money to either party.

The dispute turned on the difference between asking a tradesperson to finish a job and agreeing to pay more for it. Although Iván Soler could not prove advance approval for the additional charge, the court found that Beltrán had not established the agreement’s terms or shown that the charge breached them.

The invoice and its bank-transfer confirmation established that Beltrán paid €300: €180 for assembly and €120 for two additional hours. They did not establish what the parties had agreed before the extra work. Repeated copies of that exhibit added no independent corroboration.

The central evidentiary gap concerned the alleged requirement for written approval of extras. Beltrán relied on that requirement, but no contract, quote or message produced at the hearing established it. Soler likewise did not produce the message in which he said she had asked him to finish that day.

The court treated the missing evidence as uncertainty, not automatic proof for either side. Because Beltrán sought repayment, she had to establish that the money was not owed. Soler’s inability to prove approval did not itself establish her allegation of a breach.

The broader remedy also lacked support. Nothing showed that the original €180 assembly charge was improper. Even if the extra charge had been proved unauthorized, the court explained, that would not justify reversing payment for the assembly itself.

Beltrán’s side argued that the agreed price was €180 and that extras required written approval. Asking Soler to finish, it submitted, did not authorize an unspecified additional charge. It also argued that she paid because she felt unsafe during the discussion at her home, rather than because she accepted the price.

Soler said he understood her request for same-day completion as permission to continue. He acknowledged that he had no written approval or other obtainable proof of an agreed extra price. He relied on payment of the itemized invoice as context, while accepting that it did not prove prior agreement, and asked that repayment be denied or limited.

The dispute followed an arrangement to assemble a wardrobe at Beltrán’s Valencia home for €180. Soler reported extra pieces and two additional hours of work. Beltrán disputed the resulting €120 addition after paying the €300 invoice.

The judgment did not find that she approved the extra work or its price in advance. Nor did it find her safety explanation false: the evidence did not resolve the circumstances of payment. The outcome was confined to her failure to prove a right to repayment on the hearing record.