At present, China's second-hand car market is quite active, and the second-hand car market transaction volume continues to be the best. However, behind this strong market demand, the risk of opaque second-hand car information still exists, which is easy to cause conflicts and disputes.
Case replay] 520,000 yuan to buy a second-hand luxury car found that there had been a major accident.
Recently, the People's Court of Xicheng District, Beijing Municipality ruled on a civil litigation dispute involving second-hand car transactions.
Mr. Liu is a post-90s generation and serves as the manager of a leading company. He took a fancy to the second-hand Audi A7 car in a local car sales company, and after understanding the basic car condition with Zhang, the legal representative of the car sales company, because there was a relatively large discount, the two parties signed the "second-hand car sale and purchase agreement" after agreeing, * 520,000 yuan. A supplementary clause was also signed after the agreement, and the supplementary clause in Article 10 of the agreement stipulated: Zhang guaranteed that the vehicle had no accidents, no blisters, no fires, and the displayed mileage was a real number. After the contract was signed, Mr. Liu settled a total of 520,000 yuan of car purchase price to Zhang's automobile sales company through POS machine card swiping and transfer according to the contract, and Zhang delivered the agreed vehicle to Mr. Liu.
Mr. Liu then inspected the vehicle and found that the car was actually an accident vehicle, and that he had handled an accident claim in 2018 and had a claim record with the insurance company, and the cause of the accident recorded at that time was "failure to yield as required". There were a total of 47 maintenance items, and the amount of damage was 194338 yuan. Mr. Liu believes that Zhang concealed the fact that the vehicle had a traffic accident when he gave him the vehicle, and his behavior constituted serious fraud.
The two sides strive to "no accidents", how to interpret the "industry rules" of second-hand cars?
Mr. Zhang did not recognize Mr. Liu's request to return the car and the compensation amount of three times the purchase price. Mr. Zhang argued that the supplementary clause in Article 10 of the agreement stipulating that "no accident" was an expression based on industry practice, and what the defendant Zhang really wanted to express was that the vehicle involved in the case was not an accident car, not that the vehicle involved in the case had not been involved in an accident, and the plaintiff Mr. Liu had a misunderstanding of this clause. Zhang presented evidence and put forward Article 5 of the "National Standards of the People's Republic of China - Technical Specifications for the Appraisal and Evaluation of Second-hand Cars".Article 6 stipulates that an accident vehicle can be considered an accident vehicle if and only if the "A-pillar, B-pillar, C-pillar, longitudinal beam or shock absorber" of the vehicle is in a defective state of "deformation, distortion, replacement, welding, or wrinkling". And the usual conventions of "no accidents" are "no major accidents", "no blisters", "no fires" and "mileage". "No accidents" is a stricter criterion than "no major accidents". It is not in line with industry practice to stipulate in the contract that the vehicle sold has not been involved in an accident.
In addition, Zhang stated that he had no subjective intention to defraud the plaintiff, Mr. Liu. According to the testimony of Xu, a witness who applied to appear in court, it can be proved that when the defendant Zhang delivered the vehicle to the plaintiff Mr. Liu, he explained to him the true situation of the vehicle involved in the case, and showed him the vehicle maintenance records. The second-hand car involved in the case was purchased by the defendant Zhang in a regular Audi 4S store through legitimate and legal channels, and although the compensation was paid for maintenance due to the accident, according to the inquiry report of the third-party organization and the car purchase contract signed by the defendant Zhang when he purchased the vehicle involved in the case, it can be shown that the second-hand car involved in the case is in good condition, without any potential safety hazards, and will not affect the normal use of the vehicle at all. Zhang claimed that if there was no accident in the vehicle involved in the case, the price should be about 600,000 yuan, and the defendant Zhang comprehensively considered that he had made an insurance claim before reducing part of the price on this basis.
The court heard that the "rules of the line" were not "exempt cards", and the court found that there was fraud.
After trial, the court held that Mr. Liu's purchase of the car was for his own use, and Zhang had no evidence to prove that Mr. Liu purchased the car for business or other non-living consumption, so Mr. Liu's purchase of the car was a need for daily consumption, and the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection** should be applied.
At the same time, Zhang did not inform the plaintiff of the fact that the vehicle had been repaired when he sold the vehicle in question. According to the chat records between the plaintiff and the defendant and Article 10 of the Second-hand Car Sale and Purchase Agreement signed by the two parties, Mr. Zhang assured Mr. Liu that the vehicle involved in the case had no accidents, no blisters and no fire, so Zhang did not truthfully inform Mr. Zhang that the vehicle involved in the case had been repaired in an accident in 2018 when he sold the vehicle involved in the case. The current defendant Zhang argued that he had informed the plaintiff of the insurance claim of the vehicle when he inspected the vehicle, and that the accident record of the vehicle involved in the case was not a major accident, and that the defense opinion that there was no accident was written in accordance with the industry regulations, and no valid evidence was submitted to the court to prove it, so the court did not accept it.
In the end, the court held that Zhang had concealed the fact that the vehicle involved in the case had been involved in an accident and that there were multiple repairs and related insurance claims when selling the vehicle involved in the case, which constituted fraud against the plaintiff. Mr. Liu's exercise of the right of revocation is based on law, and Zhang should return the car for repayment in accordance with Article 157 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China. At the same time, Mr. Liu has the right to require Zhang to compensate for the losses suffered by him in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Rights Protection** by increasing the price actually paid by three times. With regard to the price of the car, both parties agreed that the price actually paid by Mr. Liu was $520,000. However, considering that Mr. Liu had an accident during his possession of the vehicle, which caused the depreciation of the vehicle, the court reduced the purchase price to 480,000 yuan as appropriate. To sum up, Mr. Liu's claim that Zhang should return the purchase price of 480,000 yuan and increase the compensation for losses by 1.56 million yuan was based on the law, and the court supported it, and the court rejected the excess part.
The judge reminded that second-hand car transactions should "keep their eyes open".
Cheng Jieling, the presiding judge of this case and the judge of the Third Civil Division of Beijing Xicheng Court, said that although second-hand cars have certain advantages over new cars, there are also certain risks in buying second-hand cars. Cars are highly technical for ordinary consumers, and the actual situation of the vehicle cannot be judged by the appearance alone. The maintenance records and insurance payment records of the vehicles are kept in the 4S stores, insurance associations and other industries, and consumers have no way to inquire about them, resulting in the car buyer only discovering the possible problems of modified mileage, major accidents, and overheating and soaking in water after the delivery and transfer of the transaction vehicle, which in turn leads to litigation disputes. In addition, some second-hand car business enterprises sign sales contracts with car buyers in the name of individual employees, resulting in the inaccurate application of the "refund one compensation three" clause in the consumer rights insurance**.
To this end, Judge Cheng Jieling suggested that as a second-hand car operator, he should first ensure that he has a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the transaction vehicle information when conducting second-hand car trading activitiesSecond, consumers should be provided with true and comprehensive information on the vehicles they tradedFinally, the content of the contract that may be ambiguous should be explained to the consumer.
As a consumer, you should be cautious in the transaction process, try to choose a second-hand car operator with a good reputation, obtain the maintenance and insurance information of the second-hand vehicle through a variety of channels as much as possible, and also jointly entrust a third party to identify the condition of the vehicle. (The names of the parties have been changed).
Text: Feng Shuaitian Jing (Beijing Xicheng District People's Court).