The Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico ruled on June 18, 2026, in the case of Antonio J. Pernas Domínguez v. Planet Solar Antillas, LLC (Docket TA2026RA00197). The court upheld a decision by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DACo) that required Pernas Domínguez to pay a cancellation fee after he attempted to cancel his solar installation contract. This ruling affects consumers and businesses involved in service contracts, particularly in the renewable energy sector.

The dispute began when Antonio J. Pernas Domínguez signed a contract with Planet Solar Antillas, LLC on February 19, 2025, for the installation of a solar energy system at his home. The contract included a cancellation policy that imposed fees based on when the cancellation was made. After realizing that the monthly payments for the solar system would be higher than his current electricity bill, Pernas Domínguez decided to cancel the contract on March 5, 2025, which was beyond the ten-day grace period for penalty-free cancellations.

Pernas Domínguez filed a complaint with DACo on April 10, 2025, arguing that the cancellation fee was invalid and that he had not been adequately informed about the financial implications of the contract. He claimed that Planet Solar engaged in deceptive practices and failed to provide proper disclosure. DACo held a hearing on February 23, 2026, where Pernas Domínguez represented himself, while Planet Solar did not appear.

The DACo issued a resolution on April 20, 2026, stating that Pernas Domínguez had a contractual obligation to pay the cancellation fee of $16,121.60. The agency concluded that he had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims against Planet Solar and that the contract was valid. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Pernas Domínguez appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that DACo had erred in its judgment.

The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Rodríguez Flores, reviewed the case and confirmed DACo's decision. The court emphasized that the contract was legally binding and that Pernas Domínguez had accepted its terms, including the cancellation policy. The court stated, "The contract signed on February 19, 2025, is the law between the parties, and obliges both parties to comply with what was agreed upon. The appellant had a term of 10 days to cancel without penalty, which did not occur."

The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to contractual agreements and the validity of cancellation fees as stipulated in contracts. The court noted that the cancellation fee was not disproportionate given the expenses incurred by Planet Solar in preparation for the installation. The court also pointed out that the absence of Planet Solar at the administrative hearing did not invalidate the contractual obligations.

This decision has significant implications for consumers and businesses in Puerto Rico. It reinforces the enforceability of cancellation fees in service contracts, particularly in the renewable energy sector, where upfront costs can be substantial. Consumers must be aware of the terms and conditions of contracts they enter into, especially regarding cancellation policies.

Moving forward, this ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving cancellation fees in Puerto Rico, potentially influencing how service contracts are structured and enforced. Consumers should take care to read and understand all terms before signing contracts, as the court's decision indicates a strong adherence to the principle of pacta sunt servanda, or the obligation to honor agreements.

As for the possibility of an appeal, details were not available in the court filing. However, Pernas Domínguez may seek further legal recourse if he believes there are grounds for an appeal, especially if he can present new evidence or arguments not considered in the previous hearings.