Stretch Ceiling Defects: Court Orders Contractor to Refund Customer UAH 124,500

The Khmelnytskyi Appellate Court has upheld a local court's decision to terminate a contract for the installation of a stretch ceiling and to recover an advance payment of UAH 124,500 in favour of the customer. The contractor's appeal was rejected, as reported by the Khmelnytskyi Appellate Court.

The court established that in August 2025, the customer entered into a contract with an individual entrepreneur for the installation of a stretch ceiling, with a total cost of UAH 178,000. On the same day, an advance payment of UAH 124,500 was made. Installation work, which began in September, remained unfinished because the ceiling sheets did not match the room dimensions and had defects, and some components were of poor quality.

After sending a formal claim demanding the timely completion of the work and following unsuccessful attempts to resolve the situation, the customer filed a lawsuit to terminate the contract and recover the advance payment.

The Dunaivtsi District Court of Khmelnytskyi region found in favour of the customer. The individual entrepreneur subsequently appealed this decision, arguing that the local court had unjustifiably relied on construction and technical expertise, as the inspection of the object was conducted without her notification.

The appellant contended that any damages recorded by the expert could have been caused by third parties, and that the detected defects were localised and not significant enough to warrant contract termination. Furthermore, she argued that by recovering the entire advance payment, the court failed to address the return of materials and components that remained with the customer.

The appellate court concurred with the local court's conclusion that the contractor had improperly fulfilled contractual obligations: providing defective materials and components, failing to rectify them despite the customer's request, and not completing the installation work within the agreed timeframe. In accordance with the Civil Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine "On Consumer Rights Protection," these actions constituted grounds for contract termination and a refund of the advance payment.

The appellate court dismissed the arguments in the appeal regarding the inadmissibility of the construction and technical expertise conclusion as unfounded. The panel of judges noted that the expert opinion complied with procedural law requirements, confirmed the presence of material defects and unfinished work, and had not been refuted by other evidence. The appellant's claims that the installation was performed by third parties were also unconfirmed, as the contract stipulated her obligation to perform these works.

The court also rejected the contractor's claim of unjust enrichment on the part of the customer. The panel of judges highlighted that the contract conditions granted the contractor the right to dismantle installed structures and retrieve materials and components in the event of contract termination. Therefore, the recovery of the advance payment itself did not indicate unjust enrichment of the plaintiff.

The full text of the appellate court ruling in case No. 674/1934/25 will be made available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.