A woman who ordered but then cancelled an order for a wedding dress has been ordered by a court to pay for the item in full.

The case goes back to May 2013 when Hannah McGivern sued Eurosposa before the Consumer Claims Tribunal alleging that on January 8, 2013 she tried on several wedding dresses at Eurosposa, and chose one.

When she asked the salesgirl about the price she was informed that for an order to be placed she would have to pay a deposit and in case she changed her mind the order could be cancelled and the deposit refunded.

On January 10, 2013 the woman went back to the shop and after trying on the same dress she decided to place a deposit of €100 on the basis of the information given to her by the salesgirl. The dress was already at the shop and no alterations or adjustments were required.

On January 17, 2013 she changed her mind due to alleged financial difficulties and called the shop to cancel the order. The owner informed her that according to Maltese law she could not cancel the order and that she was bound to pay the whole sum due for the dress.

The woman requested the tribunal to order the shop to refund the €100. The selling price of the dress was €1,700.

The shop rebutted the woman's claim on the grounds that the “Order Form” which she had signed constituted a contract of sale and that the terms and conditions together with their implications were clearly explained to applicant prior to her signing. It moreover denied that the salesgirl made the statements alleged by her.

The shop also requested the tribunal to order the woman to pay the sum of €1,700, being the price for the wedding dress.

On April 23, 2014 the Tribunal rejected the woman's request and upheld the shop's counter-claim with respect to the sum of €1,600, since applicant had already paid €100 as deposit. The Tribunal also ordered the woman to collect the wedding dress from the shop and pay the balance accordingly. 

The woman appealed. 

The court was told that on January 10, 2013, Ms McGivern signed a document entitled order form, which stated that: 
“Alterations: At extra charge. Once the order form is signed, the client is obliging himself/herself to purchase the items listed in the same order form. This order form is a contact of sale. Purchases must be collected within 7 days of our written notice. Deposit is part of the purchase price. Client is to make full payment within six months from date of purchase unless this payment is made before this date." 

The woman contended that the form was  merely a document indicating the specifications and the price of the wedding dress, it was just a “contact form”, and the conditions stipulated there were tantamount to “unfair contract terms” in terms of the law.

The shop insisted that the “Order Form” was a contract of sale and payment of €100 was a payment on account of the price."

A sale is complete between the parties, and, as regards the seller, the property of the thing is transferred to the buyer, as soon as the thing and the price have been agreed upon, although the thing has not yet been delivered nor the price paid- Civil Code

The court noted that the Civil Code defined “sale” as a “contract whereby one of the contracting parties binds himself to transfer to the other a thing for a price which the latter binds himself to pay to the former” .

Of particular relevance to the present case was a clause which said that: “A sale is complete between the parties, and, as regards the seller, the property of the thing is transferred to the buyer, as soon as the thing and the price have been agreed upon, although the thing has not yet been delivered nor the price paid; and from that moment the thing itself remains at the risk and for the benefit of the buyer.”

The court said that the “Order Form” reflected an agreement that had been reached between the parties with regards to the purchase of the wedding dress. Since the parties agreed on the thing and the price, the sale was completed. At that point in time the appellant became the owner of the dress. Both parties were from then onwards bound with obligations towards each other – the seller to deliver the dress and the buyer to pay the price.

It wasalso noted that after the woman  signed the order form and paid the deposit, Eurosposa removed the wedding dress from display and removed the picture of the dress from the catalogue.

The court therefore rejected the appeal.