The Defendant, which provided chemical cleaning services, cleaned the Plaintiff’s fur coat which already had some defects at the moment the fur coat was delivered over to the Defendant. The Defendant’s employee while accepting the fur coat for cleaning orally informed the Plaintiff that due to existing defects there was a possibility that the fur coat might have be damaged. Eventually, the fur coat was damaged and the Plaintiff being unsatisfied with the Defendant’s services applied to a court for adjudication of damages in the amount of the price of the fur coat.
The Defendant was of the opinion that the consumer was properly informed about the risks related to a possible damage before the fur coat was accepted, and as evidence provided the court with the receipt, where the name of clothing, defects existing at the time of accepting the fur coat, the description of services, the date and price of the services were indicated. Moreover, the Defendant stated that he had informed the Plaintiff orally about a potential damage to the fur coat. The Plaintiff on the contrary argued that he had not been informed properly about a possible damage to the fur coat.