Uppsala District Court denies repayment of 400 SEK bicycle brake charge

Uppsala District Court has denied Elin Berg's request for repayment of a 400 SEK brake-adjustment charge added to her bicycle service bill. The court ordered no payment from repairer Nils Ek.

Berg said she had never agreed to the extra fee. Ek maintained that she had agreed to the adjustment at that price if it was needed. The court concluded that the evidence did not resolve their competing accounts and that Berg had not proved her entitlement to repayment.

The payment record showed that Berg paid 1,300 SEK on collection day, but it did not show what the parties had agreed beforehand. Ek's service note listed 900 SEK for the service and 400 SEK for the brakes; it recorded neither details of the work nor customer approval.

A message sent before collection stated that the brake adjustment added 400 SEK and that the bicycle was ready. The court said it showed that Ek had communicated the price, but not that Berg had accepted it. The absence of a reply did not establish that she had rejected it either.

The court said disclosure mattered, but the record did not establish whether the price had been disclosed before Berg committed to the adjustment. References to a price list did not establish what she had seen or accepted.

Because Berg sought repayment, the court placed the burden on her to prove that the charge was unauthorized or otherwise improperly imposed. Her account supported her claim, but Ek disputed it and no independent evidence resolved the disagreement. The court stressed that it was not finding that Ek's account of a conditional agreement had been independently established.

Berg argued that notice of a charge was not the same as agreement to it. She said the payment record proved what she paid, while the work note and unanswered message did not prove her approval. She sought only the 400 SEK back.

Ek asked the court to dismiss the claim. He said he had made the additional price clear and understood that Berg had agreed to brake work if needed. He relied on the work note, the message and the availability of a customer price list.

The dispute arose after Berg took her bicycle to Ek's repair business in Uppsala. Ek adjusted the brakes and added the charge to the service bill; Berg collected the bicycle and paid 1,300 SEK.

The judgment leaves unresolved what, if anything, the parties agreed about the extra work before it was done. Its order is limited to Berg's repayment claim and the evidence presented.