According to Spiegel Online, via law blog, (not Law-Blog), the Landgericht Hamburg did not accept the complaint of a German holidaymaker in Sweden who was promised a Toilette and got a bucket he had to empty himself. It was a bucket with a toilet seat (Toilettenbrille – an interesting word for my readers abroad) and a number of plastic bags to empty it: what Spiegel Online calls ein Plumpsklo (I thought that was a hole in the ground, plumps being the sound made by something relatively heavy hitting water from a height – but maybe I am misinformed).

bq. Der Vermieter sei jedoch nicht verpflichtet gewesen, auf diesen Umstand hinzuweisen, befand das Gericht: “Mag die Toilette auch einfachster Art gewesen sein, durfte sie doch als Toilette bezeichnet werden.” Das Wort stelle nur “einen Oberbegriff” dar, unter den auch ein Plumpsklo fallen könne.

The word Toilette is merely a superordinate term, according to the court. I wonder what the terminologists would say about that?