Lyon court orders return of €900 kitchen deposit after missed start date

Élodie Martin asked the Judicial Court in Lyon to order Atelier Rénov' Rhône to return a €900 deposit paid for a small kitchen installation. The written quote identified 6 May as the planned start date, while the record also tied that timing to an electrician scheduled for 8 May.

No company representative arrived on 6 May, according to the record. Martin later cancelled in writing and sought both the deposit and €120 connected to arranging another electrician visit.

“I paid €900 for work due to start on 6 May. No one came.”

• Claimed relief: €900 deposit repayment and €120 for the replacement electrician visit.
• Court outcome: partial relief, with €900 awarded out of €1,020 claimed.

The record contained a written quote showing a 6 May start date, a bank record of the €900 transfer, the electrician’s written schedule for 8 May, and proof of a €120 payment. It also documented Martin’s telephone and message follow-ups, her written cancellation, and her written demand for repayment.

The central evidentiary tension was in the quote’s wording. The company relied on language that work was “planned” to begin on 6 May and subject to access to the premises. It also pointed to a proposed replacement date sent at 15:02 on 6 May, before a cancellation message at 16:11.

The court found that Martin proved the payment, the written start date, and the missed 6 May start.

• Written quote: start planned for 6 May.
• Bank record: €900 deposit paid.
• Electrician schedule: appointment set for 8 May.
• Payment proof: €120 replacement-visit expense.
• Message thread: replacement date and cancellation sequence.

Maître TAHIRI argued that the missed start disrupted a coordinated sequence of work and that the 6 May date mattered because of the electrician’s 8 May appointment. The advocacy emphasized the absence of advance warning and Martin’s follow-up efforts before she cancelled in writing.

Atelier Rénov' Rhône characterized the episode as a scheduling incident rather than a definitive failure to perform. It argued that the word “planned,” the access qualification in the quote, and the proposed new date undermined a claim for immediate termination and full recovery. It also disputed whether the €120 expense was sufficiently tied to its conduct.

The company argued that the record showed “an incident of planning,” not an irreparable breach.

• Maître TAHIRI sought resolution of the contract, repayment of €900, and €120 in damages.
• The company relied on the quote’s qualified wording and the same-day message sequence.
• Causation for the electrician expense was contested.

The successful strategy was to keep the focus on documents that were corroborated: the written date, the deposit payment, the missed start, the electrician’s schedule, and the absence of earlier warning. Maître TAHIRI connected the timing of the installation to the downstream electrician appointment rather than treating the date as a mere preference.

That approach overcame the company’s effort to frame the dispute solely as a flexible scheduling issue. Crucially, the company did not provide itemized, actual-cost support for retaining the €900 deposit.

The other side did not justify keeping the €900 with itemized, actual-cost support.

• Anchor the claim in the written quote and bank transfer.
• Show why the missed date had practical significance.
• Challenge any deposit retention lacking itemized support.

The court awarded Martin €900, returning the full deposit. It concluded that the written terms were the starting point, but that the missed 6 May start carried sufficient weight because the date was linked to the electrician’s schedule.

The court did not award the full €120 sought for the replacement electrician visit. Although the expense was supported as a consequential cost, the court found its causal connection less firmly established than the basis for returning the deposit.

The causal link was thinner than for the deposit claim.

• Disposition: partial relief.
• Amount claimed: €1,020.
• Amount awarded: €900.
• Deposit: fully returned.
• Electrician expense: not awarded in full.

Maître TAHIRI established the strongest parts of Martin’s record: the written quote, the €900 payment, and the missed 6 May start. The presentation also effectively linked the start date to the electrician’s schedule and highlighted the lack of earlier warning in the message thread.

The court’s assessment nevertheless identified vulnerabilities in the presentation. The advocacy did not fully neutralize the quote’s use of “planned,” and the €120 claim was advanced more broadly than the available causal proof supported.

The player still has the stronger record on the missed start date and the follow-up delay.

• Strength: clear use of the quote, payment record, and timing evidence.
• Strength: effective challenge to unsupported retention of the deposit.
• Weakness: limited response to the qualified wording of the start date.
• Weakness: incomplete causal proof for the €120 expense.

The record left room to debate whether 6 May was an absolute contractual deadline or a planned date subject to conditions. The company’s reliance on the access qualification and the proposed alternative date created a factual and contractual opening against a broader termination theory.

The €120 item was also vulnerable. Proof that the amount was paid did not, by itself, establish the full direct causal chain between the company’s missed start and the replacement electrician charge.

The €120 expense was less tightly documented as a direct consequence than the deposit claim.

• The quote used “planned,” rather than unqualified guaranteed-start language.
• The record did not clearly establish a short written formal notice before cancellation.
• The €120 expense had weaker direct-causation support than the deposit claim.

The Lyon decision shows the practical importance of preserving a written quote, payment proof, scheduling records, and communications when a renovation contractor misses a start date. Those materials allowed the court to distinguish between a disputed scheduling adjustment and an unsupported effort to retain a deposit.

It also illustrates that remedies may be separated. A claimant can establish a strong basis for repayment of money paid for unperformed work while still facing a higher evidentiary burden for related consequential expenses.

The court awarded the deposit while limiting relief on the additional expense.

• Written scheduling terms can be decisive when a start date is missed.
• A contractor seeking to retain a deposit benefits from documented, itemized cost support.
• Consequential expenses require a clear causal connection.

A different advocate might have improved the claim for the €120 by presenting a tighter chronology connecting the missed 6 May start, the 8 May electrician appointment, the need to reschedule, and the precise charge incurred. More focused treatment of the message timestamps and the electrician’s terms could also have reduced the causation dispute.

Conversely, the company’s position might have been stronger with concrete evidence supporting the access condition, the reason for the delay, the proposed replacement schedule, and itemized actual costs said to justify retaining any portion of the deposit. On this record, however, the lack of itemized support was a major obstacle to keeping the €900.

The deposit remedy was stronger because the payment and non-performance evidence were more direct.

• For Martin: strengthen the documentary chain for consequential loss.
• For the company: document access issues, scheduling reasons, and actual costs.
• For both sides: address the qualified “planned” wording directly.

Would you frame the missed 6 May start as a material failure tied to a coordinated construction schedule, or as a remediable scheduling delay? Build the record from the quote, payment proof, message timeline, electrician schedule, and any evidence of actual costs.

Take on a similar contract dispute in Legal Arena.

Take on a similar case in Legal Arena.

• Test the strength of a missed-start-date claim.
• Challenge or defend deposit retention with documentary proof.
• Assess whether consequential expenses are sufficiently connected to the breach.