Mr. Wang of Jiangsu accidentally discovered that there were maintenance records before the purchase of the car 4 years after buying the car, and then began to defend his rights. The dispute over the sale and purchase contract went through 5 lawsuits for 4 years and was tried by courts at three levels in three places, and finally the dust was settled.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="2" > car purchase contract is hidden</h1>
In July 2013, Mr. Wang of Feng County, Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province, signed a car sales contract with the local D Automobile Trading Co., Ltd. in FengXian County, stipulating that Mr. Wang would purchase a Volkswagen "Tuan 1.4T" car from Company D at a price of 185,800 yuan. On the day the contract was signed, Mr. Wang paid a deposit of 5,000 yuan.
Because Company D did not have the sales agency right of Shanghai Volkswagen and did not sell the car, Company D contacted the H Automobile Sales Company in Xuzhou (Company H has the sales agency right of Shanghai Volkswagen), and Company H provided Company D with a "Tuan 1.4T", and three days later, Company D delivered the car to Mr. Wang, who delivered the remaining balance on the same day.
The original car purchase contract, which was no longer ordinary, was completed, but no one expected that it would appear unexpectedly after four years.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="4" occurs unexpectedly after four years ></h1>
In August 2017, Mr. Wang planned to sell his car, which had been driving for four years. However, when the intermediary inquired about the vehicle maintenance records, it was accidentally found that the car had undergone a repair in February 2013, and the repair records showed that the front windshield had been replaced, and Mr. Wang had only purchased the car in July of that year.
Mr. Wang was very angry and believed that the D company in Feng County was fraudulent in selling the accident vehicle to himself. After the parties failed to negotiate, Mr. Wang sued Company D to the court in 2018, requesting a refund of the purchase price and compensation for twice the purchase price and loans.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="6" > first-instance judgment of consumer v. dealer</h1>
After trial, the Feng County Court ordered: 1. Terminate the car sales contract between the two parties. 2.D Company refunded Mr. Wang 185,800 yuan for the purchase of the car and compensated the vehicle purchase tax of 16,900 yuan. 3. Mr. Wang returns the vehicle purchased by Company D. 4. Dismiss Mr. Wang's claim for double the compensation for car purchase and the interest on the loan.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="8" > dealer's third-party revocation lawsuit</h1>
Company D fulfilled the first-instance judgment of the Feng County Court, during which time Company H of Xuzhou City filed a third-party revocation lawsuit, requesting the court to revoke the first-instance judgment of the Feng County Court. Company H believes that if the first-instance judgment is revoked, Company D will naturally not find itself in trouble. Unfortunately, Company H's revocation lawsuit went through the first and second instances, and was finally rejected by the two levels of courts in 2019.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="10" > dealers take partners to court</h1>
This ordinary car purchase contract has gone through the previous three lawsuits, and Company D believes that it is not its fault and that Company H in Xuzhou City should bear the final compensation liability. Therefore, in 2021, Company D sued its long-time partner Company H to the Yunlong District Court of Xuzhou City, seeking to terminate the car purchase agreement between the two companies, and Company H returned 185,800 yuan of the car purchase price of Company D and paid Company D to Mr. Wang for 16,900 yuan of vehicle purchase tax, litigation costs of 6,000 yuan and capital occupation losses.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="12" > dealer v dealer first instance judgment</h1>
The Yunlong District People's Court of the first instance held that in this case, Mr. Wang, a consumer outside the case, needed to purchase a new car, and the vehicle delivered by Company H had a replacement front windshield before delivery, which was not a "new car" in the strict sense, and Company H could not prove that Company D already knew the fact of replacing glass, which directly affected the realization of the purpose of Company D's contract.
The first-instance judgment was made: 1. Confirm the termination of the automobile sales contract between Company D and Company H; 2. Company H paid Company D 185,800 yuan for the purchase of the car, compensated 16,900 yuan in vehicle purchase tax, and the consumer sued Company D for 6,000 yuan in litigation costs and compensated for the loss of capital occupation; 3. Company D returned the vehicle involved in the case to Company H.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="14" > the defendant appealed</h1>
Company H appealed to the Xuzhou Intermediate Court against the first-instance judgment. Company H argued that, first, it found a slight crack in the front windshield of the vehicle before selling the vehicle, and immediately replaced the new windshield produced by the original factory for the benefit of the customer, which was not an accident car, and the act of replacing the glass did not affect the performance of the vehicle, and it was a new car when it was sold to Company D.
Second, as a professional car seller, Company D can obtain any information about the vehicle involved in the case, including pre-sale information, and Company D is aware of the replacement of glass, and Company H also informed Company D at that time. At the same time, the seller did not take the initiative to inform the information due to the influence of industry cognition and did not have subjective malice.
3. From the sale of the vehicle to the judgment of the court of first instance, the time span is 8 years, the consumer Mr. Wang used the vehicle for 5 years, and Company D should have kept the vehicle properly after recovering it, but it was used at will for 3 years, resulting in a significant depreciation of the vehicle, and both parties should bear the obligation to pay royalties or depreciation.
< h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="16" >2 trial summary</h1>
The court of second instance held that in this case, Company H's appeal claim that the windshield replacement had been informed to Company D, and Company D was able to obtain any information about the vehicle, but Company H could not produce evidence to substantiate its claim when it had the burden of proof, and the reason for appeal was not accepted. The termination of the contract in this case was caused by the unilateral breach of contract of Company H, and this court does not support the loss of vehicle depreciation claimed by Company H.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="18" > second-instance judgment</h1>
In summary, the Xuzhou Intermediate People's Court rendered a final judgment in September 2021: the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld. The acceptance fee of the second-instance case is 4581 yuan, which is borne by Xuzhou H Company.
This real case is derived from the Feng County People's Court of Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province, Xuzhou Intermediate People's Court (2018) Su 0321 Min Chu No. 534, (2021) Su 03 Min Zhong No. 7089 Judgment, the civil legal relationship is complex, the judicial practice of different places is different, this case is for reference only.