Two district courts have now ruled on the conduct of Hi Tronic B.V. — the company that sells home batteries under names such as Batteroo, Opslagplan and MKB Energieopslag. In both cases Hi Tronic refused to honour the right of withdrawal, relying on a bespoke-goods exception that did not apply. In Rotterdam this led to an order to pay the actual legal costs; in Amsterdam an aggressive commercial practice was established.
Seller refuses withdrawal in a distance purchase
A consumer from Zwijndrecht is approached by telephone by Batteroo (Hi Tronic B.V.) and orders a portable home battery, the 'Mini Cube', for €968. That same evening he sends an email withdrawing from the contract. Batteroo refuses to refund. According to Batteroo, the battery is bespoke and the right of withdrawal does not apply.
The quotation contains a passage in which the buyer declares that he waives his right of withdrawal, both because delivery may already begin and because the product is said to be custom-made. Batteroo also claims deductible costs: €250 for a site visit, €500 for a virtual survey and €945 for preparatory work — incurred on the very day the contract was concluded and withdrawn. Shortly before the hearing, Batteroo withdraws its appearance.
Subdistrict court annuls the bespoke-goods exception
The subdistrict court makes short work of it. The Mini Cube is a standard portable battery with fixed dimensions (420 x 285 x 255 mm). Nowhere in the quotation is there anything about adaptations for this buyer. The exception to the right of withdrawal for bespoke goods (Section 6:230p(f) DCC) therefore does not apply. The consumer withdrew from the distance purchase by email on the same day — well within the statutory cooling-off period of fourteen days.
The provision in the quotation by which the consumer waives his right of withdrawal is contrary to Section 6:230m(1)(h) DCC and Section 6:230o DCC. That provision is null and void. Batteroo should instead have stated that the buyer was entitled to withdraw within fourteen days without giving reasons.
The argument that the contract was a 'continuation' of an earlier contract the consumer had concluded with another company ('Opslagplan') was described by the court as a nonsensical position. The name Batteroo does not appear in the earlier contract, different products were offered, and the earlier contract had ended by rescission.
The set-off defence also failed. Batteroo claimed to have incurred costs that in fact could not have been incurred — the contract was withdrawn the same day and no visit took place. The subdistrict court concluded that Batteroo had made statements contrary to the truth.
The conclusion is striking. Batteroo is ordered to pay not the usual fixed-scale legal costs, but the actual costs of the representative: €2,087.25 (five hours at €345 plus VAT), plus the writ of summons, court registry fee and subsequent costs — a total of €2,605.29. The reason: Batteroo flagrantly disregards consumer law by denying the consumer the right to withdraw without proper grounds and by claiming costs that could not have been incurred.
District Court of Amsterdam: pressure, multiple trade names and an aggressive commercial practice
The District Court of Amsterdam gave judgment on 31 March 2026 in a comparable case, again against Hi Tronic B.V. The facts reveal a pattern.
A consumer is approached by telephone on 23 May 2025 by an employee of 'Opslagplan' — one of Hi Tronic's trade names. He is told that if he signs a quotation immediately, someone will visit to provide more information. The consumer signs a quotation digitally that same day for a battery costing €15,397.25. The following day an employee visits him at home. The consumer indicates that he wishes to cancel the purchase: the dimensions had not been disclosed to him and he has insufficient space. He is told that withdrawal is not possible, but that he may opt for a smaller battery. Under that pressure he signs a second quotation — this time in the name of Batteroo — for a Cube Plus costing €4,838.79, and pays €1,451.64. On 22 July 2025 his authorised representative withdraws from the second contract. Hi Tronic refuses to pay.
Hi Tronic mounts an extensive defence. To no avail.
The plea that consumer status was lacking — based on the argument that the consumer was pursuing a tax advantage with the purchase — is rejected. That someone makes a financially attractive acquisition for personal use does not make him a party acting in a commercial capacity.
The defence that no distance purchase had come about also holds no water. After the first contract had been withdrawn, a new, separate offer for the Cube Plus had been made by telephone and was signed digitally. That makes it a distance contract to which Section 6:230m DCC applies.
The bespoke-goods argument fails again. The Cube Plus is a standard prefabricated battery. That the installation is tailored to the home does not make the product itself bespoke.
The set-off defence under Section 6:230s(4) DCC likewise fails. The text of the quotation in which the consumer was said to request that performance begin had been pre-printed by Hi Tronic itself; the consumer had signed the quotation under pressure. There is then no express request. Moreover, under Section 6:230s(5)(a) DCC, set-off is in any event impossible where the trader has not informed the consumer of the existence of the right of withdrawal. Hi Tronic had in fact informed him incorrectly.
The subdistrict court qualifies the incorrect information about the right of withdrawal as a misleading commercial practice. Pressuring the consumer — by telling him that he could only get out of the first contract if he entered into a second — is an aggressive commercial practice. This provides independent grounds for annulment of the contract.
Notable is the awarded item of €650 for the costs of establishing the liable party. Hi Tronic operated under multiple trade names (Opslagplan, Batteroo, MKB Energieopslag) without stating an address or Chamber of Commerce number in the quotation. Only through recordings of telephone conversations could the consumer discover who the liable party was. The subdistrict court awards these costs in full.
What does this mean for traders selling at a distance?
These judgments reveal a pattern. Including a standard clause that excludes the right of withdrawal for products that are plainly not bespoke does not work. The court annuls such a clause without ceremony — in Rotterdam as well as Amsterdam.
Systematically ignoring consumer law leads to far-reaching consequences. In Rotterdam it resulted — combined with false cost claims — in an order to pay the actual legal costs. In Amsterdam, pressuring a consumer into signing a replacement contract gave rise to an established aggressive commercial practice and an independent ground for annulment.
For the broader context of the information obligations that apply when concluding a contract with a consumer, see also the article on the pre-contractual information obligation for service providers and the article on the lawyer's fee clause.
Frequently asked questions
What counts as bespoke goods under Section 6:230p(f) DCC?
Bespoke goods are goods specially adapted for this particular consumer: cut, engraved, made up in textile, and the like. A standard product with fixed dimensions, even if the installation is later tailored to the home, is not bespoke. In the Rotterdam case the battery was standard (420 x 285 x 255 mm) without any adaptation. In the Amsterdam case the court held that adapting the installation does not make the product itself bespoke. A reference in the quotation to "bespoke" is not sufficient.
Can a trader stipulate in the quotation that the right of withdrawal does not apply?
No. The right of withdrawal is a statutory protection for consumers. A clause that cuts off the right of withdrawal is contrary to Section 6:230m(1)(h) and Section 6:230o DCC. The right of withdrawal cannot be excluded by contract, unless the statutory conditions are met (bespoke goods, delivery begun with express consent, and so on).
When does a trader risk having to pay the actual legal costs?
Actual legal costs may be awarded where the trader behaves in a seriously improper manner: for example, by 'flagrantly disregarding' consumer law, by stating untrue facts, or by clearly abusing procedural law. The Rotterdam judgment shows that false damages claims and the unlawful denial of consumer rights can lead to this.
What is an aggressive commercial practice and what are the consequences?
A commercial practice is aggressive where, through harassment, coercion or undue influence, it materially restricts the consumer's freedom of choice. Telling a consumer that he can only get out of the first contract if he enters into a second meets that criterion. Under Section 6:193j DCC, an aggressive commercial practice provides an independent ground for annulment of the contract — quite apart from the withdrawal issue.
ECLI:NL:RBROT:2026:1899, District Court of Rotterdam, 26 February 2026.
Cited case law
District Courts: ECLI:NL:RBROT:2026:1899