The author of the entry is Advocate
In accordance with Article 556(2) of the KC, the seller is liable to the buyer if the goods sold are owned by a 3rd organization or if they are governed by the law of a 3rd organization (guarantee for legal defects). In accordance with Article 560(1) and (2) KC, where the item sold has defects, the buyer may retreat from the contract or request a simplification in the price. If the buyer resigns from the contract due to a defect in the goods sold, the parties should reimburse each another for the benefits they receive under the terms of withdrawal from the common agreement.
As provided for in Article 574 KC, if, due to a legal defect in the goods sold, the buyer resigns from the contract or demands 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 transferor 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 require reimbursement of the costs of concluding the contract, the costs of collecting, transport, retention and insurance of the goods and the reimbursement of the expenditure effected in specified a way as he has not benefited from it and has not received reimbursement from a 3rd party. It may besides request reimbursement of the costs of the process.
The work to examine the authenticity of the numbers and papers of the vehicle accepted for sale by the Commission with the due diligence provided for in Article 355(2) of the KC rests with the committee dealing with second-hand cars, and only in the event of its execution, on the basis of the prescribed standard, could it trust on the exclusion of liability for the legal defect of the vehicle sold. The Commission, under the conditions laid down in Article 770 of the KC, is so subject to an increased degree of caution, since the sales of second-hand cars by the Commission means that they must be subject to the phenomenon of placing on the marketplace on a comparatively large scale of stolen vehicles and so should be identified by a specialist. In specified a case, it is not adequate to trust on the results of the examinations provided by the committee, i.e. the method examination essential to registry the car, or the transfer of the work of that examination to the purchaser of the car (cf. ultimate Court judgement of 3.12.2008, No. V CSK 293/08).
In another ruling, the ultimate Court stated that the individual moving the car commission was a professional, which justifies assessing his or her care taking account of the professional nature of the activity. specified a individual should so inspect the vehicle accepted for commercial sale in order to detect any signs of counterfeiting or misidentification of recognition numbers as well as attached documents. The car dealer should give due care to guarantee that no manipulation is carried out erstwhile it comes to recognition numbers. It cannot be considered effective to exclude liability for defects in situations where serious doubts as to the originality of the engine number arise erstwhile it is carefully viewed, even without the usage of specialized devices (cf. ultimate Court judgement of 5.01/2001, ref. V CKN 178/00).
Court case developed by the law firm
The parties concluded a sales agreement under which the plaintiff bought from the suspect as a commissioning officer, Model X6 with VIN number (...), for a price of PLN 220,820.
In the case in question, the plaintiff showed that the car in question was affected by a legal defect due to the fact that it was owned by a 3rd party, AG Automobile A. B.w B. in Germany. The plaintiff showed this fact by evidence from a certified copy of the Executive Board's order Central Bureau of Investigation A KGB about releasing a stolen car to the owner. This is not a direct evidence of the car’s ownership, but it is based on the presumption of fact (Article 231 of the KPC) that, since it has been issued by an authorised authority, acting under the criminal procedure, to an entity established in the course of that procedure as owner, that entity is indeed the owner of that vehicle. The suspect did not submit any opposing evidence which would in any way undermine the correctness of the findings of the Central Bureau of Investigation of the KGB in Gdańsk as regards the individual who actually owned the vehicle.
The plaintiff has made a message of withdrawal from the sale contract and, in accordance with Article 560(2) KC, he is entitled to claim reimbursement of the sale price of the vehicle. At the same time, since the purchased car was taken from the plaintiff as evidence in criminal proceedings and subsequently transferred to the actual owner, the claimant is incapable to repay the common benefit as a consequence of circumstances for which he is not liable. Therefore, under Article 495(1) KC, the claimant is not obliged to reimburse the suspect for the common benefit of the contract in the form of a purchased car.
This justifies the claimant's claim for a refund of PLN 220,820. Since the plaintiff withdrew from the contract of sale concluded with the suspect due to a legal defect in the goods sold, he could also, in principle, appear against the seller with a claim for damages. In the case at issue, the wording of Article 574 KC clearly implies the work of the seller to return Among another things, insurance costs of the defective item sold. Therefore, the claimant's claim to reimbursement of the costs of the vehicle's premature insurance in the amount of PLN 8960 was based on this legal standard.
The suspect against the suit claimed that the Commissioner was not liable for the legal defects of the goods sold to the plaintiff, resulting from Article 770 of the CCC, according to which "the commissioner shall not be liable for the hidden physical defects of the goods, as well as for its legal defects, if he made this known to the purchaser before concluding the contract. However, the exclusion of work does not concern flaws of things that the Commissioner knew or could easy have found out."
First of all, the suspect did not prove that before concluding the contract he would sale for a reason, he informed the plaintiff that he was not liable for the legal defects of the sold item. The suspect provided a paper of the sales invoice containing a stamp indicating that the ‘seller on the above-mentioned vehicle does not give a warrant or a guarantee’, however, the plaintiff’s argument that, in view of its location, the size of the font and its partial cover with handwritten invoices could have been disregarded by the plaintiff, and that the message did not scope the plaintiff in specified a way that he could reasonably have read it (Article 61(1) KC) and, furthermore, that information could not be regarded as being notified to the buyer before the conclusion of the sale contract. The presentation of an invoice paper is simply a confirmation of an agreement already concluded by the parties in which they have concluded an agreement on all the components of the applicable contract, so the information contained in the sales invoice cannot be considered to have been disclosed before the conclusion of the contract.
Furthermore, the suspect did not show that the plaintiff had been given access to the rules of procedure of the committee, where the deficiency of work for the defects was reserved – the suspect simply showed that the committee had read the document. In addition, in the course of the proceeding in the character of the party, the suspect did not indicate that the plaintiff had been notified before selling the deficiency of warranty for legal defects, but only indicated that he had been informed of the deficiency of a car guarantee. However, the failure to supply a warrant for the goods sold is not the same as the notification of the deficiency of liability for the legal defects of the goods sold – they are 2 different legal institutions subject to separate regulations.
Second, even if the plaintiff was informed before the conclusion of the non-responsibility agreement of the suspect for the legal defects of the vehicle sold, the plaintiff was able to show that in the case in question The legal defect of the goods sold to the plaintiff is simply a defect that the suspect could easy find out about. The ‘easy’ uncovering of a defect should be assessed taking into account the professional nature of the business of the seller, the commissioning officer, requiring him to be more careful about his business activities (Article 355 §2 of the CCC).
In the present case, the suspect failed to complete the professional's due diligence, not paying attention to the non-compliance of the marking on the plate of the model of the vehicle sold with its actual kind of equipment. According to the marking on the data plate, the vehicle in question should be fitted with a petrol engine, whereas the car in fact was fitted with a diesel engine. Besides, the vehicle, according to the officer's assurances, it was to come from the United States of America, while it was equipped with a velocity indicator in a version sold in Europe. Of course, both the engine and components of the vehicle dashboard are interchangeable parts and it was theoretically possible for the erstwhile car owner to replace them. However, the fact of this incompatibility should prompt the suspect to request appropriate explanations from the committee and, if necessary, appropriate documentation relating to the exchange of these elements. On the basis of evidence from the expert’s opinion, the Court of First Instance found that the method of determining the kind of engine on the vehicle’s statutory plate constitutes a basic cognition for those who are active in the carriage of cars. The non-compliance of this marking with the kind of engine actually fitted to the vehicle in question was so a characteristic which the suspect could easy have known about. In addition, the plaintiff showed that information available on the net could be found out about the method state of the vehicle of the same brand, having the same VIN number as the vehicle sold by the defendant, and that information did not comply with the provision of a vehicle accident-free commission, as well as with the results of the vehicle’s paint-coating tests proving that it had no erstwhile defects. Therefore, if the suspect had completed due diligence in obtaining this information (not requiring peculiar knowledge, but only basic cognition for the professional on-line information services concerning the marketing of motor vehicles), he would have the same cognition of the real probability that the car, contrary to the commitant's assurances, may come from theft and as specified may have legal defects. The court so ruled from G. B. to W. Z. the amount of PLN 229,780 (two twenty-nine 1000 7 100 eighty zlotys), with statutory interest until the day of payment.Judgment of the territory Court in Łódź - X economical Division of 16 April 2014 X GC 40/12
In case of any questions or doubts, we stay at your disposal. delight go to the contact tab.
With respect.
