"Aliud pro alio" in vehicles
The application of the doctrine "aliud pro alio" allows contract termination, with compensation for damages.
To the Supreme Court, concept "Someone else" It includes both delivery of a thing other than the agreed, as the inability of the delivered object to the use for which it was intended (SSTS 27 February 2004, 2 June 2015).
The consequences of the way we choose are very important. If the legal strategy paper focuses on the hidden defects, el plazo para reclamar sería de 30 days as it provided in Article 342 del Código de Comercio o seis meses del artículo 1490 Civil Code. However, It is considering that has been given a completely different thing to the agreed, the limitation period would be the generic article 1964 Civil Code, established by Law 42/2015 in five years.
The concept "Someone else" It has application in any type of purchase and is particularly relevant in the field of used vehicles.
The Provincial Court of Valencia has commented on one of these cases on a purchase of a used truck, in sentence 3 July 2015. The technical management lawyer of the "winning" part was taken by the lawyer Isabel Iborra.
Don José Pablo bought second-hand truck to the company "Man Financial Services Spain S.L." (hereinafter "MFS") in March 2010. In the following months I had to acquire for the vehicle 20 liters of oil twice, as well as 15 l cooling. En junio de 2010 the vehicle was repaired at a cost of 1.874 euros. In August of the same year, other repair is for an amount of 13.972 euros. The expert the applicant stated that the vehicle had not been reviewed or properly maintained. Improper maintenance that caused the engine failure. To the client, the truck did not comply with the conditions laid down when your purchase was agreed, and such failure was the responsibility of the seller.
So I filed lawsuit claim 15.847 euros for bills paid for repairs, plus 3.457 euros in lost profits.
The Court of First Instance number one Quart de Poblet (Valencia) He granted the application and ordered "MFS" to pay 19.096 Euros with legal interest from the filing of the application.
"MFS" appealed, alleging among other reasons, misapplication of the doctrine "aliud pro alio". For recurrent, They should apply the rules of sanitation because it is a defective performance, but not in an inability for the purpose of being sold.
The Lounge, accredited considered a breach of contract by the defendant, when transmitting a truck that was not able to be used for transportation.
As to lost profits, SAP cites Murcia 20 February 2004, in stating that full compensation includes both the impairment or loss suffered, such as lost profits. And on these, the law requires proving that dutifully, Meras not cabiendo expectations, simple hopes or "dreams of profit". From the evidence examined (billing months and testifical), it is deemed appropriate amount claimed 3.457 euros (to two days being subtracted).
As for the distinction between the breach and delivering something different to the agreed, Chamber supports "The defining lines of the various actions exercisable (….) diluted notably ". And for the sake of a postulate of material justice, It estimated that in the presence of different thing or "aliud pro alio" to exist "Full failure inability object, to be unfit for the purpose for which it is intended”. Believes that "MFS" breach of contract committed to sell the truck without having made the necessary reviews.
Ultimately, the judgment of the first instance is confirmed, which considers something different was delivered to the agreed ("Someone else") and it is ordered to pay the appellant.