Customer must pay for wedding rings delivered late

Because she only received her wedding rings after her wedding photoshoot, the bride refused to pay for them. However, she could not prove that she had specified a delivery date when placing her order. The goldsmith is entitled to his money, ruled the Munich District Court.

Anyone who doesn't agree on a binding delivery date when ordering cannot later claim that their wedding rings arrived too late. They must pay for the ordered goods, the Munich District Court ruled.

The case

A bride ordered two wedding rings on April 14, 2025 , and paid €2.230,20. The wedding was scheduled for May 25. On May 5, the seller informed her, upon inquiry, that the rings would arrive on May 16. The woman then set a deadline for delivery of no later than May 9, as a wedding photo shoot was scheduled before then.

Since the jewelry had not been delivered by then, she cancelled the purchase contract that same day and demanded her money back. She argued that the seller had promised her a delivery period of 14 days . Due to the delay, she could no longer use the rings.

The seller emphasized that a delivery period of four weeks was standard . For shorter delivery times, he always had to consult with the supplier. Only after the supplier's confirmation would the agreed delivery date be noted on the sales contract. However, no such note existed in this case. The matter went to court.

You might also be interested in:

Operations management

Pension insurance: Minijobbers now have a choice

Operations management

Defect: The seller must prove the cause for one year.

Operations management

Offer via WhatsApp has an expiry date

The judgment

Since the woman could not prove that she had agreed to a short delivery period , she must accept the ordered rings, ruled the Munich District Court. The seller is not required to refund her the purchase price.

The statements of the bride and her fiancé regarding the agreed-upon delivery deadline contradicted the seller's statement. Since the court was ultimately unable to determine whose statement was correct, the matter was deemed "non liquet." According to the rules of evidence, the proceedings were therefore decided against the married couple.

Munich Local Court, judgment of February 10, 2026, case no. 173 C 9005/25 , not legally binding

The advisors at the Chambers of Crafts will be happy to help you with any legal questions!

DHB now also available digitally! Simply click here and register for the digital German Crafts Journal (DHB)!