Yongge detective | obviously bought a new car, but when he returned home, he found that it was second-hand, what to do?

Introduction: This incident occurred in a car 4S store in Zhenjiang City, the owner of No. 1 first bought a car in the 4S store, he purchased insurance for the vehicle, applied for a temporary license plate, activated the car OnStar system, and returned the car. The 4S store then voided the car's purchase invoice and surrendered the policy. A few days later, owner 2 took a fancy to the car, and 4S shop sold the car to owner 2. After the owner of the No. 2 car bought the car, he found that the car leaked oil, and after sending it for inspection, the OnStar system of the car was registered, and the car was also sold. So the owner of the No. 2 car sued the 4S store, believing that they were fraudulent, and demanded to terminate the car purchase contract and compensate for the loss of three times the purchase price.

At the trial, the 4S shop argued that the owner of No. 1 wanted to buy the car at that time, but did not pay the full amount on the same day, so it surrendered the car's insurance policy and invalidated the invoice. Two days later, owner 1 chose another vehicle of the same model and delivered cash, so the car that the 4S store sold to owner 2 was not actually delivered to owner 1. The 4S shop also provided vouchers for cash delivery from owner 1, but did not provide a surrender application form for the vehicle.

The court of first instance held that the car was not actually delivered, it was still a new car, and the 4S shop did not constitute fraud. However, the store did not clearly inform the activation of the on-board system, which had a certain impact on the Decision of the No. 2 owner whether to buy the vehicle, infringing the consumer's right to know, so the 4S store was ordered to compensate for economic losses of 30,000 yuan and rejected the other litigation claims of the No. 2 owner. The owner of The No. 2 car was not satisfied and appealed, and the court of second instance ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

Is that the truth? The owner of the No. 2 car appealed to the procuratorate against the verdict, and the procuratorate filed a protest. After re-examination, the court made it clear that the owner of No. 1 had actually paid all the purchase price when he first went to the 4S store, and the vehicle surrender application document stated that the reason for the surrender was "the vehicle has quality problems and needs to be returned to the manufacturer", while the cash voucher provided by the No. 1 owner provided by the 4S store was forged by the 4S store. Therefore, the 4S store seriously violated the consumer's right to know, constituting sales fraud, and the judgment was changed to support the litigation claim of the Owner of No. 2, ordering the 4S store to return one and pay three, and fining the 4S store 200,000 yuan for forging evidence.

Planner: Chen Dichen

Copywriter: Ren Guoyong Zhang Bingjing

Camera: Lu Jing, Xu Jia

Design: Xiao Sweet

Editor: Yang Wanxia (Practice)