Resolution vehicle purchase for defects

 compraventa vehiculos defectos

The contract to purchase the vehicle can not be solved if the breach is not essential and grave

 Consult your case now

In the judgment we analyze, a new vehicle that presented certain faults and other equipment changed on after a couple of years bought. It is the last vehicle which also introduced several mechanical problems, In addition to having manipulated the odometer. The lawsuit filed purchaser exercising the action for breach of contract and seeking the resolution of the contract. The Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona, in its section No. 13 , of 22 October 2019, No.. resolution 1094/2019 He gave judgment dismissing the request.

Fact background,,es,Juan Alberto and Paulina filed suit against FTA,,es,Asset Securitization Fund,,es,requesting the declaration of nullity for abusive of the floor and ceiling clauses contained in the novation contract of the mortgage loan of,,es,with the corresponding refund of amounts unduly collected,,es,The Securitization Fund Management Company,,es,Beech,,es,acting on behalf of FTA, he responded to said claim alleging that he lacked passive legitimacy since the entity had no legal personality and that it constituted only a private and open fund and that therefore the passive legitimization corresponded to BBVA as successor of Catalunya Banc that was the Company fund constituent,,es

D. Horacio bought Gathered Automobile Company S.A. ( S.A.R.S.A) a new car brand Seat Leon 1.6 the TDI 30 April 2010 amounting 19.021,39 euros. The car gave problems and 11 May 2012, S.A.R.S.A reached an agreement with D. Horacio to return the vehicle, valuing it 12.000 euros and taking a used (Seat Leon 1.2 SOMETHING) without having to pay any additional amount.

This car presented various mechanical breakdowns in the distribution chain, clutch, Headlight washing, turbo and other, having to go D. Horacio several times to the shop and paying the amount of 1,473’05 euros.

Furthermore it was claimed by D. Horacio this second vehicle, It is clear from revision history, before buying had already suffered other previous failures and that its odometer had been tampered with.

D. Horacio lawsuit filed ordinary trial S.A.R.S.A. He asked the court to be declared terminated the contract of sale, that pay him the amount of euros 19.021'39 (amount of the first vehicle purchased) and also, in compensation for damages will be paid the full amount of repairs made to the second car (1.473,05 euros). Alternative, for if it were not upheld the main claim, is ordered to SARSA to pay to the plaintiff the sum of 12.000.-euros corresponding to the purchase price of the vehicle used and, in the case of the former subsidiary petition should be dismissed, an order that SARSA to pay the difference between the two contracts, amounting to 7.021,39.-euros in damages. All with the statutory interest from the date on which the payments were made and with the express imposition of costs to the defendant.

Primera Instancia

The 3 November 2017, the Court of First Instance No. 5 Sabadell, He gave judgment partially estimating demand. He solved the contract of sale for breach, referring to the second contract. The amount should be returned was in the amount of 12.000 euros, adding further claim for compensation how payment of reparations (1.473, 05 euros).

The judge found that there was a breach of contract (art. 1124 Civil Code),  and that the object was unskillful (aliud pro alio) for the contracted purpose.

The representative appealed S.A.R.S.A.

Provincial Court

The appellant denied breach of contract regarding the first vehicle since it did not present any deficiency or defect, que no hubo manipulación alguna del cuentakilómetros puesto que el concesionario lo adquirió del fabricante en ese estado. He added that the faults reported by the purchaser were minor and due to misuse. He further alleged that the expert appointed by D. Horacio was biased when making the assessment of defects and faults that had the vehicle. The judge wrongly assessed the evidence examined. He asked to be dismissed in its entirety the application with costs to D. Horacio.

The 22 October 2019 Section 13 of the Provincial Court of Barcelona gave judgment partially upholding the appeal filed by S.A.R.S.A.

For Hearing, the first contract of sale had taken effect between the parties without challenged its validity, and he had subsequently signed a new contract substitution. Therefore it was unassailable.

As for the validity of the second contract, He referred to the applicable regulations:

-Consumer protection resulting from Directive 1999/44 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 25 May 1999,.

-Directive 1999/44 was the Law 23/2003, of 10 July, Guarantees in the Sale of Consumer Goods, whose estimates were subsequently integrated into the revised text of the General Law for the Defense of Consumers and Users and other complementary laws (TRLGDCU) arts., 116, 117 and 120 .

– Article 1124 Civil Code.

The Chamber held that not all failure is grounds for termination. This should be the last resort.

“In this sense, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court states that constitutes a breach of contract with effect adjudicative providing object other than a concerted (aliud pro alio) concurring said course by inability of the object and consequent dissatisfaction of the buyer, to the object to be improper to which it is intended, some obstativa being sufficient gravity to the normal use of the thing according to their destination or use becomes severely irritating or annoying. Thereby, concur to said course decisional, it is necessary that the breach of the obligation to be regarded grave, unskillful well be the object delivered, or unfit for purpose that is intended, either because it is substantially deprive the buyer of what, beyond a mere subjective dissatisfaction, He was entitled to expect. (So, SSTS 20 March 2002, 28 November 2003, 13 May 2004, 15 November 2005, 7 December 2006 the 9 July 2007, o STS 368/2019 of 27 June 2019, inter).”

The Court reviewed the statements made in the first instance both the actor and the expert. The contradictions that appeared in them supported the allegations made by the appellant. Incidents subject of the second contract signed by the parties, They did not take the body enough to consider a serious breach concur with fitness resolutoria. Also, I were derived from misuse by the actor.

Regarding compensation for repairs made by the applicant, the room, invoking Article. 120 the TRLGDCU, He said that they should be free. He confirmed the sentence of the judgment of first instance to the payment of 1,473’05 euros (amount that was not discussed in this appeal) in respect of damages correspond to the amounts paid repair bills by actor.

Conclusion

The contract termination is the ultimate solution. The breach must be serious and essential so that it can terminate the purchase of a vehicle for defects or damage suffered.

 Consult your case now

 

Leave a Reply

Language


Set as default language
 Edit Translation


Subscribe to receive a book PDF


Just for signing up receive via email the link to download the book "How to change lawyers" en format digital.
Sign up here

Sígueme en Twitter



Subscribe me

* This field is required