Buying a car with left papers and a fake acquisition contract

adwokat-radca-prawny.pl 3 years ago

The author of the entry is Advocate

Pursuant to Articles 560(1) to (2) of the KC, if the item sold has defects, the buyer may retreat from the contract or request a simplification in the price. However, the buyer may not retreat from the contract if the seller immediately mentions a defective item to a defect free of defects or immediately removes the defects. This limitation shall not apply if the item has already been mentioned by the seller or repaired, unless the defects are irrelevant. If the buyer resigns from the contract due to a defect in the item sold, the parties should reimburse each another for the benefits received in accordance with the rules on withdrawal from the common agreement.

The right to retreat from the contract is the right of the buyer to unilaterally bring only his declaration of will to cease the sale contract. Consequently, they are considered to have been lodged at the time erstwhile the addressee came to be in specified a way that he could have read the contents of it (Article 61 KC). Since the legislator does not supply for a circumstantial form for this statement, it may be filed in any form provided for by law, including implicitly (Article 60 KC). The submission of a message undermines the effects of the conclusion of the contract and implies a return to what existed before it was concluded.

The withdrawal from the contract so requires a declaration of intent to which Article 60 of the CCC applies, which states that, subject to the exceptions provided for in the law, the will of the individual carrying out the legal act may be expressed by any conduct of that individual who reveals his will in a satisfactory manner. Rules of explanation of declarations of will may be applied not only to find the content of the statements made but besides to find whether the conduct is simply a declaration of will (cf. ultimate Court judgement of 14 May 2009, Case CSK 401/08). A declaration of will may be expressed in any objectively understandable manner, and thus clearly or implicitly by any conduct which, in accompanying circumstances, expresses a sufficiently understandable desire to bring about certain legal effects.

The consequence of withdrawal is the work for the parties to return what they have demonstrated to each other. The fact that the buyer cannot return the car seller which was taken from him by the owner does not deprive him of the claim for reimbursement of the price (so the ultimate Court in its judgments of 13 October 2000, act II CKN 288/00, 4 February 2011, act III CSK 144/10).

Pursuant to Article 576 of the KC, the warranty rights for legal defects of the goods sold shall expire 1 year after the buyer has learned of the defect. If the buyer is aware of the existence of a legal defect only as a consequence of a 3rd party’s action, that time limit shall run from the date on which the decision given in the dispute with the 3rd organization became final. The expiry of the above word does not exclude the performance of the warranty rights if the seller has schemingly withheld the defect.

Court case developed by the Chancellery

The plaintiffs sued for payment of the amount of PLN 30 260.23, for which the amount of PLN 25 000 was submitted in the title of refund of the price of the vehicle’s sale due to withdrawal from the defendant’s M. (...) vehicle’s sales contract with rej number. (...) due to a legal defect in the purchased vehicle, and the amount of PLN 4 182,23 for the costs incurred after the acquisition of the vehicle repair and insurance policy.

The defendant, in contesting the request, referred to the ineffectiveness of the reason for the withdrawal from the contract due to the fact that he effectively acquired the property of the vehicle at issue - M. (...) - from G. S. and was thus entitled to order it and so the plaintiffs could not make the suspect a charge that he had sold to them the property of another individual or the rights of 3rd parties. The suspect in the course of the proceedings explained that the circumstances of the conclusion of the contract between him and G. S. could not rise any reasonable uncertainty about the defendant's origin and legal position of the vehicle. In addition, the suspect pointed out that, before concluding the contract, he had verified the legal position of the vehicle in the applicable institutions, inter alia by telephone in the communication department of the office where the vehicle was registered, that the purchased car had a ‘pure’ past and that it was not burdened by any entries likely to rise doubts about the transaction. Consequently, the defendant, erstwhile acquiring the vehicle, remained in good religion as to its origin, as he exhausted all available means of obtaining information about the vehicle in question, exercised the due diligence required of him as an entrepreneur in specified situations, and established beyond uncertainty that G. S. was entitled to dispose of the vehicle independently and could, in further consequence, effectively – as owner of it.

The factual situation, including in peculiar the series of events which led the plaintiffs to get the M. (...) vehicle was not covered by the dispute. Beyond any doubt, there is besides a question related to Forging a vehicle sale contract that allegedly was concluded between vehicle owner M. M. (1) and G. S. and further resale of the vehicle to A. W.. These issues were clarified in criminal proceedings in which G. S. was found guilty of the alleged acts against him, including the misappropriation of a vehicle owned by M. M. (1) and the forgery of the said contract, which the local court is bound by Article 11 of the KPC.

The Court of First Instance pointed out that, although the evidence gathered in the present case shows that the suspect had not only carried out a method verification of the vehicle before the acquisition of the vehicle, but besides carried out a legal verification and reached the competent communication department by telephone whether the vehicle was not covered by a safety or was not covered by a lien where he obtained a negative response, however the performance of those activities, taking into account the fact that the suspect is professionally active in the sale of vehicles, could not prove adequate to consider that he has exercised due care to examine whether the seller is indeed a individual entitled to the Regulation as a thing disposed of, which in this case should be to find whether the seller, or M. M. (1) notified the Communication Department of the disposal of the vehicle, in accordance with the Traffic Law.

First of all, the Court of First Instance pointed out that the suspect had actually taken the verification before concluding the contract for the sale of the vehicle with G. S., but it was amazing that The defendant, in contact with the Communications Department, limited himself to ascertaining that the vehicle was not the subject of a safety and failed to find who the owner of the vehicle was, in peculiar with respect to the fact that G. S.'s registration certificate was not entered as owner. It had to be determined whether M. M. (1) notified the Communication Department of the disposal of the vehicle. The defendant, justifying his conduct, argued that G. S. presented to him a sales agreement to be concluded between him and M. M. (1), which the suspect considered sufficient. The uncovering that the fact that the vehicle was not sold to the Communication Division by the vehicle seller should have a crucial impact on the defendant's decisions. However, referring to the defendant's explanations, the Court of First Instance pointed out that although the fact that the owner's change was not actually placed in a situation where a professional is making a acquisition for further resale of the vehicle is simply a frequent phenomenon, it is nevertheless fair to note that G. S. the professional was not, which should rise the defendant's vigilance, the more so that the vehicle purchased only 2 weeks earlier, and the transaction was to take place at the another end of Poland. This is important, although it is common that the possible buyer is looking for a vehicle not only in the vicinity of his/her place of residence, but besides in another places of Poland, however, the vehicle seller is most frequently selling the vehicle at his/her place of residence, i.e. selling the vehicle to the local car dealer or himself putting the vehicle for sale, expecting the buyer to come for the vehicle.

All the above circumstances have led the Court to conclude that the defendant, despite the verification of the vehicle, failed to exercise due care which could prejudge the existence of his good religion at the time of the acquisition of the vehicle. In the opinion of the Court of First Instance, the defendant, first of all as a professional vehicle sales agent, knowing about the short period of time between this and the erstwhile transaction, and in addition to not disclosing changes to the owner in the registration card or in the Communication Department, should have carried out a more careful verification of G. S.'s authority to dispose of the vehicle. Moreover, in the Court’s assessment, the deficiency of specified verification is amazing due to the fact that the defendant, as he pointed out, contacted the competent communication department, and thus did not prevent the suspect from making the verification.

In summing up all the above, the Court of First Instance concluded that it was not possible for the suspect at the time of the conclusion of the contract to delegate good religion and consequently could not benefit from the protection provided for in Article 169(1) KC and get ownership of the vehicle. Therefore, given that the contract concluded between the unauthorised individual and the suspect did not lead to a change in the owner of the M. (...) vehicle, the owner remained M. M. (1). The above means that the defendant, although he did not have the right to do so, has made a regulation for reasons attributable to the property of a 3rd party, and thus undoubtedly bears liability to them under Article 556(2) KC

In that state of affairs, it should be considered that the conditions for exercising the right of withdrawal from the defendant’s contract provided for in Article 560(1) of the KC have been updated.Consequently, in view of the unquestionable effectiveness of the message of withdrawal made by the plaintiffs, the suspect has updated the work to reimburse the sales price of PLN 25,000, which led to the consideration of the action in this respect.

The court besides took into account the content of Article 574 KC the claim of reasons in the scope of PLN 5,260.23 for costs incurred after its acquisition related to repair of the vehicle and insurance policy. According to that provision, if, due to a legal defect in the goods sold, the buyer withdraws from the contract or requests a simplification in the price, he may claim compensation for harm caused by the defect, unless the harm is due to circumstances for which the seller is not liable. In the second case, the buyer may only claim compensation for harm suffered by the fact that he has concluded a contract without being aware of the existence of a defect; in particular, he may claim reimbursement of the costs of concluding the contract, of collecting, transporting, storing and insureing the goods and of the expenses incurred in so far as he has not benefited from them and has not received reimbursement from a 3rd party. It may besides request reimbursement of the costs of the process.

Given that the costs incurred by the claimant constitute the cost of the expenditure incurred on the vehicle which has been documented by the VAT invoices presented by the reasons and the cost of insurance, besides documented by the presentation of insurance policies, and thus referred to in Article 574 KC, the claim in that part was subject to consideration. judgement of the Szczecin-Central territory Court in Szczecin - X economical Division of 28 February 2017 X GC 626/14