Here’s how the reluctance of the dealer to return the money for the car have given the owner

Return the car to the salon: the Explanation of the Supreme court

Here's how the reluctance of the dealer to return the money for the car have given the owner

A defective car is not a reason that the owner has to endure constant repairs and can do nothing to protect their rights. Moreover, the possibility of a claim absolutely no impact mark, or the cost of the model you purchased. If your car started to give you constant problems and the dealer is unwilling or unable to correct the problematic situation, it is time to demand the restoration of law and justice through the courts.

 

Several times the Supreme court had to deal with the solution of intractable problems between car dealers and car owners discouraged. Very often the motorists and dealers unable to reach consensus on repair warranty terms car repair. Here’s an example of trials VS the end of 2017: a Defective Mercedes brought the owner to the Supreme court

 

A similar dispute has been resolved by the highest court, which after five years of litigation has finally been put to end. Point – to- fat. The dealer paid the customer 11 million roubles in compensation and penalties. The claim about cancellation of the contract of sale, the recovery of the cost of the car, the refund of the difference between the price of a car, penalty, compensation of moral harm, the penalty was decided in favor of the plaintiff. Details about how it happened will tell you right now.

Here's how the reluctance of the dealer to return the money for the car have given the owner

Avtovladelets from Voronezh to the end of October 2012 bought a BMW, a contract of sale in the amount of 3.050.000 rubles. No sooner had the car fully to cover its warranty period, as he had problems: the car has ceased to be got, did not work the handbrake, there was a knock on the suspension. Exactly two years later, in November 2014, the owner turned to the other, but also the official dealer of the brand to rectify failures and shortcomings.

Passed the statutory 45-day period, but the fault in the car dealer removed were. The woman has addressed with the claim to the dealer from whom you purchased the car, abandoning the execution of the contract of sale and demanded return of the money paid for the car. The dealer in this she refused. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the court, believing that the refusal of the Respondent is illegal, she asked the court to rescind the contract of sale of the car from October 31, 2012, “to recover from the defendant the value of the car in the amount of 3.050.000 rubles., to reimburse the difference between the price of the goods established by the contract, and the price of the relevant goods on the date of the judgment in the amount of RUB 1.392.922, liquidated damages in the amount of 3.050.000 RUB, compensation for moral damages in the amount of 10,000 rubles., the penalty of 50 % of the awarded in favor of plaintiff amount.”

Here's how the reluctance of the dealer to return the money for the car have given the owner

As can be seen from the materials of the administrative case, the district court and the appeals court did not support the requirements of the buyer, standing on the side of the dealer. Here is an extract causes the official refusal of the court:

“The court of first instance, refusing satisfaction of claim requirements, based on the fact that the company “…”, where the plaintiff asked to eliminate the deficiencies of the car, was not authorised by the seller ( ” … ” ) organization, these societies were not concluded a contract for acceptance and satisfaction of requirements of consumers concerning the goods of inadequate quality, in connection with which the defendant is not liable in case of improper fulfillment of obligations by third parties.

The court of appeal agreed with these findings.”

 

That is, the dealer cannot answer for what the repair was covered by third parties. It is not the answer.

 

The Supreme court’s decision

Here's how the reluctance of the dealer to return the money for the car have given the owner

These arguments are not accepted by the court. He considered that the company established a two-year warranty period on the car, made by “BMW AG”, in case of detection of the product defect, the duty to meet customer requirements (established by articles 18 and 29 of the Law on consumer protection), charged with not only the manufacturer, seller and authorized organization, but also to the importer.

 

Because in the country there is only one importer of BMW cars, so the car into the country has imported it. This same institution has entered into dealer agreements with several companies. Including the company that sold the machine to plaintiff, and that it undertook to repair.

 

The importing company has authorized both of the dealer responsible for defects of the vehicle to the buyer, regardless of whether any of the official dealers of the vehicle purchased. This is confirmed by the fact that the dealer has accepted the car. Thus, the vehicle warranty is not interrupted. And since the violation of the terms of elimination of lacks by itself is an independent and sufficient basis to meet customer requirements (it is written and stipulated in the law on consumer protection and the clarification of the Plenum of the Supreme court), there are no contradictions with the existing legislation here.

The dealer could not legally refuse satisfaction of requirements of the buyer acting within the law. The courts of first instance and of appeal also supported the dealer on imaginary grounds.

 

The Supreme court reversed the decision of the appeal Board and sent the case for retrial.

Here's how the reluctance of the dealer to return the money for the car have given the owner

And now the most interesting, because the definition was made entirely in February 2018, the case was reviewed by the court. The plaintiff’s claim was satisfied. One, two and three – the total amount for the car initial $ 3 million increased to 11 million rubles! The amount included:

3.050.000 rubles the cost of the car, which during the five-year lawsuits have grown in value by almost 1.5 million.

Was charged a penalty of the cost of the car

And 50% penalty of the total amount of compensation

And all these money dealer, the same Respondent who did not follow the letter of the law, should pay to the plaintiff.

Sometimesiamanasshole знатьЗаконодательствоТехосмотрЛайфхак
Knowledge base