The Bottom Line
- Vague excuses are no excuse: A Dutch court has ruled that service providers cannot abandon a job and simply blame “improper client behavior.” To justify stopping work, you must provide specific, concrete evidence of the alleged misconduct.
- Declaring non-performance creates instant breach: Informing a client via message that you will not complete the agreed-upon service can immediately put your company in default, allowing the client to cancel the contract and claim damages without a formal notice period.
- Proving damages from bad reviews requires hard data: To successfully sue for damages caused by a negative online review, a business must demonstrate specific, quantifiable financial losses. Merely claiming the review was damaging is insufficient.
The Details
This case involved a dispute between a moving company and its clients. The company stopped the move midway, claiming the clients had behaved improperly toward its staff. The clients, left with a half-empty house, were forced to hire another, more expensive company to finish the job on the same day. They sued the original moving company for a full refund of their prepayment and for the extra costs incurred. The moving company countersued, demanding damages for a negative online review the clients had posted.
The District Court of Noord-Holland sided decisively with the clients. The court established that the burden of proof rested squarely on the service provider to justify its decision to halt the work. The moving company’s allegations of “improper behavior,” “shouting,” and “commanding” were deemed too vague and unsubstantiated. The court noted the company failed to provide any concrete details—such as specific statements, timings, or witness declarations from the movers involved. Without such specific evidence, the work stoppage was an unjustified breach of contract.
Crucially, the court found that the company’s WhatsApp message stating it would “not continue with the move” was a clear communication of its intent not to fulfill its contractual obligations. Under Dutch law, this constituted an immediate default, entitling the clients to dissolve the agreement and seek damages without delay. The court also dismissed the company’s counterclaim regarding the negative review. While the review was harsh, the court ruled that a claim for financial damages requires proof of actual, demonstrable loss of business directly caused by the review. The company failed to provide any such evidence, rendering its claim purely speculative. The original default judgment, ordering the company to refund the clients and pay for their additional moving costs, was upheld.
Source
Rechtbank Noord-Holland
