Pirkanmaa District Court orders €129 headphone refund despite opened-packaging restriction

Pirkanmaa District Court has ordered Kuulas Audio Oy to refund €129 to Elina Koskela when she returns her headphones and their packaging, granting the relief she sought under the shop’s advertised 14-day home trial.

The dispute turned on a practical contradiction: the shop invited customers to try headphones at home, but refused Koskela’s refund because she had opened the packaging to do so. The court rejected the shop’s request to deny or reduce repayment. It awarded no additional money, interest or costs.

The court found that the advertisement reasonably allowed customers to open and try the headphones. An unopened-only restriction would substantially defeat that invitation: customers could not assess the fit by inspecting sealed packaging.

The saved advertisement showed the model Koskela bought and contained no unopened-only condition. Although it did not expressly promise a refund, the court read the offer as a whole. Inviting customers to return an unsuitable product after a home trial reasonably conveyed that they need not keep and pay for it.

Timing mattered too. Both sides agreed that the receipt containing the restriction was handed over only after payment. The shop had no evidence that it explained the condition beforehand, so the receipt did not establish advance notice of a limit that conflicted with the advertised trial.

The support messages added context, but were not an independent guarantee of repayment. Koskela disclosed that she had opened and tried the headphones before support directed her to bring them and the receipt to the shop. That reply did not warn that opening the package defeated the trial; the later refusal expressly relied on the open seal.

Koskela argued that a home trial necessarily permitted opening the package and that a condition supplied after payment could not empty the earlier promise of practical meaning. She relied on the advertisement and the support exchange.

Kuulas Audio argued that neither document expressly promised money back. It relied on the receipt’s restriction and asked the court to treat the advertisement’s meaning as uncertain. However, it accepted that the receipt came after payment, that there was no evidence of an earlier explanation, and that the restriction was difficult to reconcile with a home trial.

Koskela saw the advertisement a day before buying the €129 over-ear headphones at the shop in Tampere. She tried them that evening, found the fit uncomfortable and sought a return four days after purchase. After support directed her to visit, the manager declined a refund because the seal was open.

The judgment rests on the documents and the reasonable meaning of this particular offer. No supplied law or rule governed the decision, and the court did not establish a general right to return all opened shop purchases.