Lyon Court Orders Partial Repayment of €600 Website Deposit After Unfinished Delivery

Élodie Marchand sought repayment of a €600 advance paid to Nicolas Perrin for work on a bakery website. The central disagreement was whether Perrin could retain the deposit despite the fact that the site was not delivered in an exploitable state.

Perrin’s position was that he had agreed to build the site, homepage and ordering structure—not to create the menu, product details or product visuals. He argued that completion depended on information Marchand supplied too late.

“The likely outcome is reduced rather than total relief.”

• Claimant: Élodie Marchand
• Defendant: Nicolas Perrin
• Court: Tribunal judiciaire de Lyon
• Claimed amount: €600
• Disposition: partial relief

The visible record supported payment of the €600 advance through a bank transfer. It also supported the conclusion that the website was not usable as delivered.

At the same time, the record indicated that work had begun: the homepage and ordering structure were started, and the defense maintained that some work had been accepted. The record also reflected that essential menu and product information arrived late.

The evidentiary gap was significant. There was no known written contract, no written request defining the site content, and no itemized valuation of the work Perrin said he had completed.

“The visible record still shows a paid €600 deposit and an unusable result from the claimant's perspective.”

• Bank record supported the €600 payment.
• The site was not delivered as exploitable.
• Homepage and ordering structure were started.
• Essential content was said to have arrived late.
• No written contract or itemized work valuation was produced.

Marchand’s case focused on the promised practical result. Her advocate argued that beginning a homepage or building a partial structure did not justify retaining the full advance when the ordering site remained unusable.

Maître CAZAGOU, advocating for Perrin, advanced a partial-performance defense. Maître CAZAGOU argued that the scope was limited to website construction, that menu and product content were excluded, and that Marchand’s late inputs prevented completion.

The defense did not deny the payment. Instead, it argued that any repayment had to account for the value of work already performed and could not properly be a full refund.

“Any repayment should reflect proven value of completed work.”

• Marchand emphasized payment and non-delivery of a usable result.
• Maître CAZAGOU emphasized limited scope and late essential inputs.
• The defense sought denial or a material reduction, rather than an all-or-nothing outcome.

The decisive defense strategy was to move the dispute away from a binary question of completion and toward the value of partial performance. Maître CAZAGOU consistently tied the unfinished state of the site to missing menu and product information.

That approach found support in the record. The court’s signals recognized that some work had been done and accepted, that late inputs affected completion, and that a reduced remedy was more appropriate than treating the matter as if no service had been supplied.

But the strategy had a limit: Perrin did not provide a concrete itemization, actual-cost proof, or bounded valuation showing why he should retain a particular portion of the €600.

“The defense created enough basis to resist a full refund and support a reduced remedy.”

• Coherent theory: partial performance, not total non-performance.
• Late inputs were used to explain why completion did not occur.
• No valuation evidence supported retention of the full advance.

The court granted partial relief to Marchand. Of the €600 sought, the award was €450.

The result rejected Perrin’s request to deny repayment altogether. It also stopped short of a full refund because the record suggested that some website work had been performed and that completion was affected by late essential inputs from Marchand.

Perrin’s actual liability was therefore set at €450, rather than the full €600 claimed.

“The court grants partial relief rather than a complete denial.”

• Amount claimed: €600
• Amount awarded: €450
• Currency: EUR
• Disposition: partial relief
• Winner recorded: Maître CAZAGOU

Maître CAZAGOU earned the recorded win by maintaining a consistent theory across the hearing: Perrin had performed meaningful work, and the missing content needed for completion came too late from Marchand.

The advocacy successfully identified the strongest available mitigation points. The court specifically credited the defense for establishing some work and acceptance, connecting incomplete delivery to late inputs, and arguing for a reduced remedy rather than an all-or-nothing result.

The final outcome nevertheless shows that the defense’s success was limited. The court accepted the partial-performance theory only enough to reduce the repayment, not enough to preserve the entire deposit.

“You argued for a reduced remedy rather than an all-or-nothing result.”

• Final score: Maître CAZAGOU 20, opponent 13.
• Strength: consistent partial-performance theory.
• Strength: late-input causation argument.
• Result: reduced liability, but not complete defense victory.

The principal weakness was the absence of proof quantifying the work already completed. Perrin did not provide an itemized breakdown of tasks, a valuation of the homepage and ordering structure, or evidence of actual costs supporting retention of a defined amount.

The lack of a written agreement also left the scope dispute exposed. Although the defense said menu and product content were excluded, the record did not include a written scope document confirming that limitation.

Those gaps left Marchand with the stronger visible narrative on payment and usability: she paid €600 and did not receive an exploitable site.

“You did not give the Court a concrete itemization or value for the completed work.”

• No itemization of completed work.
• No concrete valuation of retained value.
• No known written contract.
• No written content request or scope confirmation.
• Usability remained the claimant’s strongest factual theme.

The decision illustrates the importance of separating incomplete performance from no performance in a service-contract dispute. Partial work can prevent a full refund, but only where the record gives the court a reliable basis to recognize its value.

For digital-service providers, the case underscores the need to document scope, dependencies and client-delivered materials. A written list of required menu data, product descriptions, images and delivery dates could have made the causation argument more concrete.

For clients, the ruling shows that an unusable deliverable remains powerful evidence when seeking repayment, even where a provider can point to preliminary work.

“The claimant still has the stronger payment-and-nonusable-result narrative.”

• Document scope before work begins.
• Record client-content deadlines and reminders.
• Preserve deliverables and task logs.
• Value partial work with invoices, time records or milestones.

A different defense presentation could plausibly have reduced the award further if it had paired the late-input argument with documentary proof. A task list, dated screenshots, messages requesting menu information, time records, and a clear valuation of completed work would have given the court a firmer basis to calculate a deduction.

Conversely, a stronger claimant presentation could have pressed the absence of a written scope and demanded proof that the partial work had independent usable value. That could have strengthened the case for recovery of the entire €600.

On the existing record, however, the mixed result followed the competing facts: a paid deposit and unusable outcome on one side, partial work and delayed inputs on the other.

“Without itemization, actual-cost proof, or a bounded valuation of the work retained,” full retention was not justified.

• Defense improvement: itemize work and prove its value.
• Defense improvement: document requests for missing content.
• Claimant improvement: challenge the independent value of partial deliverables.
• Existing record supported neither full retention nor full recovery.

Would you defend the provider’s right to retain payment for partial website work, or seek full repayment for a site that was never usable? Take on a similar contract dispute in Legal Arena.