The Court noted that from the evidence of the consumer, it resulted that the cancellation post was sent by ordinary post, whereas the trader had declared that he had never received the cancellation form. The Court held that it was clear that the consumer had, in trying to cancel the contract, failed to abide with the requirements of the law which stipulated that a doorstep contract must be cancelled by delivering the cancellation form in person or sending it by registered post to the trader. The Court therefore decided that the contract had not been cancelled in accordance with the requirements of the Door-to-Door Salesmen Act.
Consumer had also raised the plea on the basis of article 10 of the Act that she had a just cause in cancelling the contract. The Court held that consumer however had failed to show that she had a just cause to justify the cancellation of the contract on the strength of this provision. The Court noted that just cause could be a mistake on some fact of substance or action consisting of some form of trickery or abusive conduct which may have been conducive to the consent of the consumer to the contract or else some other shortcoming with regard to the essential elements required for the validity of contractual obligations agreed to.