Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elina Koskela seeks repayment of €129 for headphones purchased from Kuulas Audio Oy. She asks to return the headphones and packaging in exchange for a refund. The dispute is whether the shop’s advertised 14-day home trial allowed her to open and try the headphones and still return them for her money back. 2. The parties agree that the receipt was handed to Elina after payment. It states that voluntary returns within 14 days require unopened packaging. The defendant accepts that it has no evidence the restriction was explained before payment. The parties also agree that the advertisement invited customers to try the headphones at home for 14 days and bring them back if they were not right. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is whether the home-trial offer gave Elina a right to return opened headphones for a refund. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that right. No supplied law or rule has been provided for this dispute, so the decision rests on the evidence and the meaning reasonably conveyed by the shop’s offer. Submissions of the parties 4. The plaintiff argues that a home trial necessarily permits opening the package and trying the headphones. The advertisement said to bring them back if unsuitable, and the receipt’s unopened-only condition was not provided until after payment. The plaintiff also relies on the support exchange: Elina disclosed that she had opened and tried the headphones, and support told her to bring the headphones and receipt in so the shop could sort out the return. The plaintiff requests €129 in exchange for the headphones and packaging. 5. The defendant argues that the advertisement did not expressly promise a refund and that the support reply did not guarantee payment. It relies on the receipt’s unopened-only term, while acknowledging that the receipt was handed over after payment and that there is no evidence the restriction was explained beforehand. The defendant asks that the refund be denied or reduced because the advertisement’s meaning is uncertain. Evidence and findings 6. The saved advertisement (exhibit-1-e1, also reproduced as exhibit-2-e1 and exhibit-3-e1) is clear and identifies the same headphone model. It says: “Try our over-ear headphones at home for 14 days. Not right for you? Bring them back.” It contains no unopened-only condition and does not expressly use the word “refund.” The screenshot is presented evidence; the record gives no specific reason to doubt its wording or its match to the product. I find that it reliably establishes what the advertisement said, but not by itself the precise payment arrangement. 7. The receipt (exhibit-2-e2, also reproduced in later exhibits) records the €129 purchase and says voluntary returns require unopened packaging. Its wording is evidence of the shop’s stated return condition. But both parties agree it was handed over after payment. The defendant expressly accepts that it cannot show Elina knew of the restriction before buying. The receipt therefore does not establish that the restriction formed part of what was communicated to her before the purchase. 8. The support thread (exhibit-1-e3, also reproduced in later exhibits) records that four days after purchase Elina said she had opened and tried the headphones and asked to return them under the home trial. Support replied, “Bring the headphones and receipt in and we will sort out the return.” After her visit, support said the manager had declined a refund because the seal was open. This thread establishes that the shop was told the headphones were open before asking Elina to bring them in, and that the eventual refusal was based on the open seal. The initial reply does not expressly promise a refund, but it also does not warn that opening the package defeats the advertised trial. 9. The plaintiff’s submissions and the client statements relayed through counsel (exhibit-3-client-statement:9 and exhibit-3-client-statement:7) are not independent documents or admitted witness testimony. They are consistent with the presented advertisement and support thread, but I do not treat them as separate proof of what was said at the shop before payment. The defendant’s submissions, including its concessions in statements 4, 6, and 8, are likewise not independent exhibits; the concessions are relevant to the parties’ agreed position that the receipt came after payment and that no evidence shows an earlier explanation. Reasons 10. The plaintiff has established the return right on the balance of the available evidence. The advertisement did not merely offer a chance to inspect sealed packaging. It invited customers to try the headphones at home for 14 days and bring them back if they were not right. For headphones, trying them at home in the advertised way reasonably requires opening the package. A condition that opening the package automatically prevents return would substantially defeat the practical meaning of that invitation. 11. The defendant is right that the advertisement does not expressly say “refund.” That omission creates some uncertainty, and the support reply “we will sort out the return” is not an express promise of payment. But the question is what the offer reasonably conveyed as a whole, not whether it used a particular word. In this context, telling a customer to try a product at home and bring it back if unsuitable reasonably communicates that the customer may return it rather than keep and pay for a product that failed the advertised trial. The later refusal specifically because the seal was open confirms that the dispute is about the shop’s restriction, not whether Elina tried the headphones within the trial period. 12. The receipt does not resolve the uncertainty in the defendant’s favor. It was provided only after payment, and the defendant has no evidence that the unopened-package restriction was explained beforehand. The receipt’s term also conflicts with the advertised home trial. On this record, the shop cannot rely on that later-written restriction to defeat the reasonable meaning of the earlier offer. The defendant’s argument that the advertisement was not explicit is considered, but it does not outweigh the advertisement’s practical meaning, the absence of advance notice of the restriction, and the support thread showing the shop knew the headphones were open before directing Elina to bring them in. 13. The plaintiff has therefore met the burden on the only material issue. The requested remedy is a refund of the documented €129 purchase price in exchange for return of the headphones and packaging. The record supports that amount and that exchange. It does not support additional monetary relief, interest, or costs, and none is awarded. Final order 14. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff, Elina Koskela. Kuulas Audio Oy must refund €129 to Elina when she returns the headphones and packaging. The defendant’s request to deny or reduce the refund is denied. No additional monetary relief is awarded.