Курасао: суд рассмотрел спор о возврате депозита за неправильно установленный бассейн

WILLEMSTAD – A dispute over the installation of a swimming pool costing ANG 68,500 has ended up before the Curaçao Court, with the customer seeking the return of a nearly XCG 48,000 deposit and additional compensation after claiming the pool was improperly installed. The customer entered into an agreement with IGUI in May 2022 for the delivery and installation of what was described as an “unlimited pool & spajacuzzi” for XCG 68,500. A deposit of XCG 47,950 was paid, while additional components including hydrojets and LED lighting were subsequently ordered. The pool was eventually installed on June 5, 2023, but the customer complained about the quality of the work and demanded that IGUI remove the pool and refund the money. Correspondence included in the court ruling shows that the customer informed the company that the alleged lack of workmanship had destroyed confidence in allowing IGUI to build a replacement pool. The customer later repeated the demand that the company remove the pool and refund the XCG 47,950 deposit. The dispute subsequently went to court. The customer argued that IGUI had failed to fulfill its contractual obligations because the pool did not conform to what had been agreed. In addition to repayment of the deposit, the customer sought XCG 49,113.13 in damages, consisting largely of costs associated with the pool’s foundation and its removal. IGUI disputed that it had failed to meet its contractual obligations and argued that the agreement had not been legally terminated. The company therefore maintained that there was no basis for damages. IGUI also conditionally sought XCG 8,500 for repair costs, arguing that damage to the swimming pool had been caused by the customer. The court found that correspondence, photographs and an expert report showed that there were defects in the swimming pool to varying degrees. The central legal issue, however, was whether IGUI had been given an adequate opportunity to remedy those defects before the customer terminated the agreement. The case illustrates how disputes over construction and installation work can turn not only on whether defects exist, but also on whether the contractor was formally given an opportunity to correct them before a contract is terminated.