In the city of Mar del Plata, civil justice confirmed the dismissal of a claim for damages against a union organization dedicated to the management of recreational spaces. The conflict arose due to the reservation of a room for a young woman’s 15th birthday party, which ultimately did not take place at the contracted location. Chamber I of the Appeals Chamber closed the file after analyzing the evidence collected and the arguments of both parties.
The case, which was followed by Infobaeoriginated when the teenager’s mother, who had reserved the hall of a union entity for November 17, 2023, He reported that the company informed him about the supposed impossibility of using the space due to remodeling works.. The plaintiff maintained that this led to the cancellation of the event at that location and the hiring of another room, which generated additional expenses and family discomfort.
The lawsuit included a request for compensation for breach of contract. The claimant argued that there were communications with campsite staff, in particular with a woman identified as an employee of the entity, who had warned her about the works and the eventual unavailability of the room for the agreed date. The file contains screenshots, a notarial document and computer expertise that attempted to prove these exchanges..
As can be seen from the resolution, the first instance judge rejected the claim. He considered that The alleged non-compliance was not proven, since the information collected showed that the entity informed the claimant that the room would continue to be available.. The ruling also determined that the complaining party’s conduct in hiring another salon days after receiving the notice constituted a unilateral termination of the contract.
The plaintiff challenged the decision, invoking the Consumer Protection Law and alleging that the interpretation should favor the user when faced with doubt. He stressed that the messages between his contact and the campsite staff, added to the testimonies of witnesses, supported his version about the existence of a prior warning from the company about the supposed reform.
In her presentation, the plaintiff also questioned the statements of the employees of the union entity, pointing out contradictions and bias. He noted that one of the witnesses admitted having become aware of the claim and that another, according to telephone records, had maintained communications with the plaintiff, although he denied it before the Court.
The defendant, meanwhile, appealed the application of the Consumer Protection Law, understanding that it was not appropriate in this case, since the union does not operate the salon as a regular commercial activity, but rather makes it available to its non-profit members.
When analyzing the file, the Chamber resolved unanimously. Firstly, it declared the defendant’s appeal void due to lack of interest, since the first instance ruling had been fully favorable.
Upon the claimant’s appeal, the court reviewed the evidence presented. He highlighted that, although computer expertise confirmed the existence of WhatsApp messages between the hired DJ and the camping staff, the central conversation referred to another event other than the birthday in question. He also warned that, a few days after receiving the alleged warning, the plaintiff booked another salon for the same date.
The court observed that the documentation provided by the claimant herself included a message, dated June 2023, in which a union employee informed her that the works would not be carried out and that the room would be available on the agreed date. The Chamber assessed that the main evidence, consisting of testimonies from those close to the plaintiff, presented weaknesses because it was “hearsay” references and not directly witnessed events.
The resolution also considered that The plaintiff did not formally inform the union organization to confirm the availability of the room before terminating the contract.. The judges considered that this step was relevant in a conflict of this nature.
The House ruling confirmed that The burden of proving breach of contract fell on the complaining party.even under the prism of the Consumer Protection Law. It cannot be condemned “for a non-compliance based on mere conjecture,” the magistrates noted in the ruling.
The court concluded that the complaining party decided to terminate the contract and hire another space without reliably corroborating the information received, which prevented the union entity from being proven responsible. “Having not demonstrated the breach of contract that the defendant faced, I conclude that the claim has been correctly dismissed.”, the court held.
The decision of the Chamber included the rejection of the appeal of the complaining party and the confirmation of the first instance ruling, with appeal costs borne by the person who lost the process. The regulation of fees was deferred to a later stage.
Judicial proceedings show the impact that conflicts derived from social and family contracts can have, especially when they involve celebrations of high symbolic value. The case also illustrates the weight of documentary and testimonial evidence in civil and legal proceedings. the difficulties that users face when claiming alleged contractual breaches in the extrajudicial sphere.
The House’s review of the arguments included a thorough analysis of digital messages, notarial records and witness statements presented by both sides. The court decision stressed the importance of having reliable notifications and minimum formalities before terminating contracts due to doubts about their compliance.
