When selling a registered vehicle, it is the seller's burden of proof that the monthly charge on the vehicle is not hidden from the buyer
In recent times, a number of problems between buyers and sellers have become more widespread, especially in our country due to the development of technology and the resulting increases in vehicle sales. In particular, in the case of vehicle sales carried out through Internet sites, various disputes arise due to the fact that the vehicle sold does not have the specified characteristics or the concealment by the seller of a certain defect or dishonor or does not have the characteristics expected by the buyer, but in the light of the circumstances that have developed, both in the light of our laws and certain decisions of the court, the seller and the buyer have a team responsibilities and assignments are loaded.
In this short article, we also mentioned a In a judgment of the Supreme Court, it ruled that the seller is responsible for compensation in favor of the buyer as a result of the dispute between the seller and the buyer arising from the sale of the vehicle. We have advice in the form of several items that we will give in order to avoid buyer and seller disputes before passing the relevant Supreme Court decision.
· The determination of whether the vehicle was in an accident must certainly be carried out thoroughly by an expert.
· The damage history of the vehicle must be checked.
· The vehicle must be inspected on the odometer line. Because in recent times there may be fraudulent transactions in vehicle mileage.
As mentioned above in the articles, it is extremely important to follow these procedures in the purchase and sale of vehicles. Often the dispute between the buyer and the seller is a secret shame, which is unknown to the buyer. Therefore, the vehicle he will receive must undergo the necessary inspections.It is specified in Article 223 of the Law on Debts, both in case of open offenses and in relation to hidden offenses. According to the mentioned item if the buyer sees a defect in the sale that entails the seller's responsibility, as soon as it is possible to review the situation of the sale in accordance with the usual flow of affairs, he must inform him of this within an appropriate time.If the buyer neglects to review and make a notification, he is considered to have accepted the sold. If there is a subsequent disgrace that cannot be caused by an ordinary inspection, the seller must also be notified immediately.Otherwise, he is considered to have accepted the sale in this disgraceful form.
In case of disputes that may arise, if the dispute is not resolved, it is brought to court, we recommend that you exercise your legal rights accompanied by an expert lawyer and collect all the evidence that may be in your favor through your lawyer. Otherwise, loss of rights may be caused.
Here is exactly the text of the relevant Supreme Court decision, which summarizes this situation between the seller and the buyer, as follows;
The car sold cheaper than the market does not mean that the buyer knows the shame in the car, that the burden of proof lies with the seller,
13th Judicial Chamber of the Supreme Court
Basis: 2016/22567
Decision: 2019/4145
At the end of the hearing of the receivable case between the parties, the file was examined and considered on the need to be examined by the plaintiff's lawyer within the period of the ruling on the rejection of the case for reasons written in the proclamation.
The plaintiff; learned from the defendant that he purchased a vehicle on 11.03.2015, that the vehicle was registered pert at the time of applying for insurance and casco transactions, that the defendant did not inform him about this before the sale, claiming that the fact that the vehicle was registered with pert must be considered as a secret disgrace, to the return of the concealed fraudulent vehicle and the sale price of the vehicle with the sale price of 14,900,00 TL for the vehicle He requested that a decision be made to collect a total of... TL227.07, including the expenses of 327.07 TL he had made, together with the legal interest.
The defendant asked for the dismissal of the case.
The court decided to dismiss the case; the judgment was appealed by the plaintiff.
Between the plaintiff and the defendant dated 11.03.2015... According to the statement of the plaintiff, the vehicle was sold to the plaintiff for 14,900,00 TL and delivered on the same date with the contract of sale concluded at the Notary Office. Claiming that the vehicle's private registration was concealed from him, the plaintiff demanded the return of the vehicle to the defendant and the collection of the sale price and the costs incurred for the vehicle from the defendant. The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff bought the vehicle for less than 6,000,00 TL, that this difference was due to the loss of value caused by severe damage to the vehicle, and that the plaintiff knew or could be aware of the serious damage to the vehicle. On 10.06.2000, the vehicle in the case was subjected to heavy damage due to severe damage. The plaintiff learned that the vehicle he had purchased from the defendant was one of the few cars that had previously been in an accident and, in other words, he contacted the insurance company that it was dishonest. According to Article 223 of the Law on Obligations, the buyer is obliged to review the situation of the sold in accordance with the normal course of affairs as soon as it is possible and if he sees a disgrace in the sale that entails the seller's responsibility, he must inform him of this within an appropriate period of time. If the buyer neglects to review and make a notification, he is considered to have accepted what was sold. If there is a subsequent disgrace that cannot be caused by an ordinary inspection, the seller must also be notified immediately. Otherwise, he is considered to have accepted the sale in this disgraceful form. The plaintiff informed the defendant of the secret offense that he learned about by a notary notice dated March 12, 2015. The plaintiff has not accepted that the sale by notifying the sellers immediately due to secret disgrace has been dishonorable in accordance with the provision of the law described above.
If, in accordance with the expert report received, the court finds that the plaintiff knew the tort due to the purchase of the vehicle at less than the market value, the fact that the plaintiff knew of the tort, the purchase of the vehicle below the market value does not constitute a finding that the plaintiff knew the tort. The burden of proof that the charge incurred in the vehicle in the subject of the case is not hidden from the plaintiff lies with the defendant. In this case, the court must make a decision according to its outcome, taking into account the stated considerations, while the provision in writing with the contrary considerations is contrary to the procedure and the law and requires its reversal.
consequence: It was unanimously decided on 28/03/2019 on the CANCELLATION of the decision appealed for the reasons described above, the return of the fee received in advance on request and the way to correct the decision in accordance with article 440/III-1 of the HUMK was closed.