Had written it before, everyone has to decide for themselves. But I do find it quite amusing how that is argued.
The borrower has received a service. Exactly the one he ordered. It was not of poor or insufficient quality, but exactly as ordered. He also used it. So he has fully utilized the service. The fact that a formal clause was incorrect does not change the service. Now the customer smells a chance to reduce the price of the service afterward. Not because of faulty or qualitatively insufficient delivery, but solely because of a debatable wording of an explanation.
Consider whether you would want to squeeze a few thousand euros out of your carpenter or electrician years later just because he forgot a legal note on the invoice back then that the builder was not interested in anyway.
Oh yes, there was also something about the immoral banks. If you take the approach of the Old Testament, you can of course justify it with... an eye for an eye... oh no, in most cases it’s not like that at all but rather like you, someone I don’t know, but I read it in the newspaper in a completely different case, so I do the same to you.
Again, it is not legally wrongful if the judgment is confirmed as such. But I am the kind of person who, if I have received a service, I pay for it as agreed. If I have not received it or it was worse or different, then you look for a solution. Otherwise, I pay for what I ordered.