You bought a car in “perfect condition” but received scrap – the seller had to regret it

This dispute between the buyer and the seller took almost a year and a half to resolve: the Vilnius Regional Court announced that it was terminating the contract between the parties and requesting restitution, so the seller must return the money paid for the vehicle. , and within seven days publication of the decision to return the car.

This should be a painful lesson for the seller who misled the buyer, as the court also ordered the buyers to pay more than 2,000 euros in damages and litigation costs.

“The buyer cannot use the purchased vehicle both for his own safety and for the safety of other road users, he has not bought it in order to keep it unused in the garage,” announced the panel chaired by Judge Inga Staknienė.

The decision of the Vilnius Regional Court came into force immediately after its publication and must be executed immediately. At the time, the Vilnius City District Court, which had previously heard the case, had ruled otherwise: the court did not consider the buyer’s status as a consumer and noted that the woman knew she was buying a 15-year-old product. . old car with natural wear. he did not inspect the car, although he had such an opportunity, and rushed back from Klaipeda to Vilnius.

“The court rules that there are no grounds to consider the car’s defects as a material breach of the contract of sale and to rescind the contract of sale,” said the lower court, whose decision was overturned by the higher court on appeal.

The woman who sued the car dealer in court stated in her lawsuit that in 2019. In December, she found an ad on the website for a Volvo XC90.

“The ad said the car is fine, there are minor non-essential defects, 4×4, gasoline,” the woman agreed with the seller that she would come to Vilnius to inspect the vehicles.

According to the applicant, the car dealer did not disclose to her the deficiencies of the Volvo XC90, but merely provided her with a roadworthiness test card showing that the car met the requirements and could be involved in traffic.

“When inspecting the car, the seller guaranteed that the car was in good technical condition, only he drove it all the time, its condition was ideal,” I believed and decided to buy this vehicle, said the citizen of Klaipėda.

On the same day, he signed a car sale agreement with the seller, under which the car was sold for 2 thousand. 450 Eur.

“In the contract, the seller stated that the car had minor body defects and minor electronic defects,” the woman said. “When I returned to Klaipeda that same night, I noticed that the car was shaking, I immediately called the salesman, but he reassured me and told me to keep driving.”

The next day, after buying a used car, he took it to an auto repair shop, where he learned that he had bought “junk”.

“The foremen indicated that the car was in poor condition – severely damaged and punctured, other deficiencies were identified that prevented it from operating,” the woman told the court that service personnel identified 21 major and 9 minor deficiencies in the car.

He immediately informed the seller, but he no longer spoke and finally offered to make a claim in writing.

The buyer also contacted an authorized Volvo service center, where he heard even worse news: the car could not be operated due to the identified defects and the value of removing the defects is almost 8 thousand. EUR.

“After evaluating the amount of the purchase of the car and the fact that the offer to eliminate defects is not profitable and unacceptable, I applied to the seller with a claim and informed him that I would unilaterally terminate the contract, I asked him to return the 2 thousand paid for the car. 450 Eur and pick up my car, in addition to compensating me for the losses suffered (326.65 Eur – this was the cost of an inspection in a car repair shop), because the operation of the car sold in traffic is prohibited ”, he said the woman in an unenviable situation.

He also noted that he was careful when buying the car, tested it in the parking lot, and inspected it.

“I trusted the buyer to say that the Volvo XC90 was technically in order,” he said, adding that the vehicle he was selling had major hidden faults that could not occur 24 hours after the car was purchased.

“I had the objective of buying a car suitable for public transport, but if the services determined otherwise and the seller did not fulfill its obligation to provide the buyer with legal information, that is, without discussing the defects of the car, I obtained the right to withdraw from the contract. “.

At the time, a Vilnius resident who sold a Volvo XC90 said that the buyer did not care or was careful enough when buying a car.

“The car was in 2004. production, so I could not expect flawless performance from a 15-year-old car, as the mechanisms of the car in use naturally wear out, the defendant noted. – The price of my car was almost two times lower than other cars sold in the market, the buyer knew this, so she was aware that she would not buy a car in perfect technical condition, motivating that additional costs would be needed to repair the car. “

The seller also pointed out that before signing the contract, the buyers offered to go to the car repair shop and check in detail the technical condition of the car, but the latter refused this service because he would have to pay an additional 30 euros.

However, the seller admitted that the car had defects, but the buyer knew about them: that during the inspection, the indicators on the car’s dashboard came on due to the gearbox, electronics and safety, as well as a test driving (10-15 km), driving and on an uneven road.

“On the day of the sale, the car was in good technical condition, operated every day and met established expectations,” said the seller who had bought the car just over a year ago. He did not agree that the car should be sold with hidden defects, as all the known defects of the car were revealed during his inspection.

At that time, the Vilnius Regional Court, having made an unfavorable decision for the seller, had a different opinion. According to the judges, in the sales contract, the seller pointed out two deficiencies of the car: “That the car has minor defects in the bodywork and electronics.”

However, as auto service personnel discovered, there were more deficiencies: steering column slack; shock absorbing hinges; jet thrusts. Another service identified 20 major and 6 minor faults in the car.

‘It is found on the record that the applicant purchased the car for her own direct use and therefore had a reasonable expectation that it would be appropriate; he bought a car for 2450 euros, negotiating 150 euros, although the prices of similar cars start at 5,500 euros, which means that the price of the car has been reduced significantly, “said the jury.

After evaluating the evidence in the case, the judges stated that they could not accept the seller’s argument as proven that the car’s sale price was lowered precisely because of its identified deficiencies in specialized automotive services.

‘There is no written evidence in the record to show that the plaintiff knew that he was inspecting a car with misplaced brake pipes and that there was a risk of damage; the braking efficiency is less than 16 per cent; That excessive wear on the joints or joints of the steering arms and levers; the battery is not installed correctly and may cause a short circuit; the suspension component is securely and insecurely attached to the chassis or axle; that the exhaust system is not safe; that there is an engine oil leak, the steering fluid tubes are wrapped in material and this could cause damage to the environment or endanger other road users; that the background is unsafe, unstable and severely damaged, etc. ”, According to the court, these defects of the car were not specified in the sales agreement, they were not visible in the visual inspection of the vehicle, the seller did not inform the buyer about them.

According to the judges, when evaluating the technical evaluation of the sold car carried out by the technical inspection company, it is obvious that said car cannot be operated.

“If it is established in the case that the purchased vehicle cannot be used for traffic, it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot use it for his direct purpose,” emphasized the panel chaired by judge I. Staknienė. – At the time of the car purchase, the applicant was unaware of the alleged defects in the vehicle, did not disclose (or did not know) the seller, it became apparent immediately after the conclusion of the contract and could not be attributed to the actions and fault of the applicant were hidden so that any careful buyer would not have been able to detect them without a special investigation. “

The court found that the case had proven that the defects in the vehicle had occurred prior to the delivery of the vehicle, and therefore ruled that the seller must get their car back and the buyers reimburse the money paid for it.

“The panel of judges indicates that it is in the interest of the seller to specify in the contract for the sale of a vehicle all the relevant conditions for the execution of the contract in order to avoid liability for defects in the car sold,” the court decision states. – Without resorting to this possibility, you cannot rely on the disclaimer. (…) If the defendant had recorded in the written contract for the transfer of the vehicle all the errors identified by the special team during the inspection of the vehicle and discussed their effect on the price reduction, the defendant’s arguments on the undervaluation, wrong choice of disproportionate resources of the applicant justified “.

According to the court, the jurisprudence of the Lithuanian courts has repeatedly stated that it is the seller’s duty to guarantee the quality of the items sold, which should be considered a guarantee according to the law and has the highest enforcement intensity.

“It was the defendant who had to discuss the defects of the vehicle that was sold in the sale contract, and if he did not do so, he must assume the legal consequences derived from it,” the judges ruled.