No claim was made and no evidence of this was presented. The first contact to which the defendant refers is by email dated December 26, 2013.
There is no mention of this matter in the emails from December 15, 2013, December 16, 2013, and December 18, 2013, and only in the email of December 22, 2013, the defendant states for the first time: "And I have to have you replace me with measurements that we did not order at all and received in spite of this." In response, the plaintiff's representative replies in a return email: "Regarding the exchange of sizes, I do not recall that there was an agreement between us on measurements on demand, but in any case on this issue I will examine the possibility of changing the size XXL for you."
In an email dated December 26, 2013, the defendant replied: "We didn't ask for sizes XL and certainly not XXL, I complained about it when you brought me the products and said you'd change for me, so at least you'll be flexible in this matter. We have nothing to do with these attributes."
In an email dated December 29, 2013, the plaintiff's representative replies: "At the beginning you were given the option to choose the products into the box and so you did, you never had and will never have a say in the dimensions of the products and models of the products you have chosen, as I said if I am allowed I will replace the problematic dimensions for you (please send you an exact list of quantities according to the 2 sizes you specified) but this too will be done only after the payment has been made."
This is an argument that belongs to the realm of non-conformity. However, the defendant did not prove that he did not order oversized shirts, since he did not attach the order itself, and it is not clear why the defendant claims that there is nothing to do with these sizes. These are common measurements in men and it has not been proven, presented or claimed that their quantity was unreasonable in relation to the degree of prevalence of this measure among potential consumers.