Andorran Loses Fraud Appeal Over Undelivered €6,525 Fireplace
Spanish court rejects woman's claim against Catalan firm for failing to install custom fireplace in Andorra, ruling it a civil dispute not criminal.
Key Points
- Woman paid €6,525 via bank transfers for custom fireplace never delivered due to Andorra access issues.
- Entrepreneur admitted payment but cited resale difficulties; offered refund after resale.
- Court found no prior deceit, dismissing fraud (estafa) complaint.
- Case redirected to civil courts as contractual dispute.
An Andorran resident has lost her appeal in Spanish courts to have a delayed fireplace installation classified as fraud, after paying €6,525 for equipment that was never delivered.
The woman contracted a Catalan company to purchase and install a custom fireplace at her home in Andorra. She made the payment via several bank transfers, but the company failed to deliver or install it due to unspecified problems accessing Andorra. By the time installation became feasible, she no longer wanted it. The entrepreneur acknowledged receiving the funds and the sale but explained he could not return the money because the unit had a specific pre-installation for her property, making resale difficult. He stated he would refund her once he could install it for another client.
The Andorran filed a criminal complaint in Spain accusing the entrepreneur of estafa (fraud). The initial investigating court in Lleida dismissed the case, and last week the Audiència Provincial de Lleida rejected her appeal. The court ruled that the facts do not meet the legal requirements for fraud, lacking evidence of prior deceit or any deceptive manoeuvre that induced her to pay.
Judicial records confirm the bank transfers, a budget provided by the company, and messages between the parties discussing the purchase, delivery issues, and Andorra-related obstacles. The woman had visited the entrepreneur's home, where she saw a display of fireplaces for sale, confirming his legitimate business in selling and installing them.
The ruling emphasises that no indications exist of simulated intent or trickery. Instead, the failure to deliver and refund constitutes a contractual dispute, to be resolved through civil courts to restore balance between the parties' obligations.
Original Sources
This article was aggregated from the following Catalan-language sources: