A “Makaw” parrot and two dogs were the focus of a case brought before the Larnaca District Court. The case involved a financial dispute of € 1,000 as a balance between a woman and a pet shop.
They shook hands
It was January 2009 when, after a verbal agreement between the store and a customer, it was decided to buy a “Makaw” parrot at a price of 2,135 euros. According to the store, the amount of 1,135 euros had been repaid, with the remaining amount of 1,000 euros pending and the woman refusing to pay it. For her part, the woman, as she testified in the Court of First Instance, claimed that the agreed price was that of 1,950 euros – and not that of 2,135 euros – and that she had paid it.
Dogs are an issue
At the same time, wanting to emphasize the unreliable attitude and behavior of the store, she stated that during the same period she bought two dogs from the store, a “French Bulldog” and a “Labrador Retriever” for the total price of 1,300 euros. In fact, as she noted, she gave the store the amount of 300 euros as an advance payment, while it was agreed that the remaining amount be paid, after the store handed her “certificates of purity” of the animals. The term of the certificates, according to her, was explicit and inviolable for the payment of the remaining amount, as the dogs were intended to take part in dog competitions. The store did not give them the agreed certificates of dog's anemia, with the result that she herself did not pay the amount of 1,000 euros she owed. It is underlined that he suffered financially from the non-observance of the agreement between them, as in the end he was not able to participate in the competition, but also to do the special trainings and diets that he used to do.
The Court of First Instance, hearing the case, examined witnesses from both sides. However, the court, in view of the way they answered the various questions put to them, including their general conduct in the witness chair, and with reference to the case-law on the evaluation of oral testimony, found the witnesses called by the court to be unreliable. of the store, and trustworthy those who were called in favor of the woman. At the same time, he rejected the relevant lawsuit from the store, as there was no legally acceptable evidence to prove the claim of 1,000 euros as a balance due from the sale of the parrot.
He was not convinced
In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that all the grounds of appeal on the part of the store were unfounded, rejecting them. However, it is worth noting that the decision was not unanimous. The minority argued that the first-instance decision should be set aside and that a retrial by another judge should be ordered as a matter of priority.
Find HERE the points for free rapid test on Friday 30 July (Catalog)
Marios Pelekanos [Cub. Representative] to Politis 107.6: Finally the free rapid tests from Sunday – These measures are being studied by the Minister today
Giannakis Mousas and Ronaldinho shook hands!