A young man buys a car for 131 thousand dirhams and discovers a hidden defect after a year

The Al Ain Court of First Instance ruled to reject a lawsuit filed by a young man against a car showroom, after he discovered a hidden defect in a car he had purchased a year ago. The court attributed the reason for not accepting the lawsuit to the fact that it was filed against someone without legal capacity, as the showroom played the role of mediator, and the plaintiff had to file the lawsuit against the owner. Previous vehicle.

In detail, a young man filed a lawsuit against a car sales showroom, demanding that he be obligated to pay the value of the car in the amount of 131 thousand dirhams, in addition to fees and expenses, indicating that he bought a vehicle from the defendant, and upon examining it it was found that it had many faults, and that it needed to replace the entire base. Otherwise, it will be removed from the traffic. The defendant went back to return the vehicle and receive its paid value, but the latter did not receive the vehicle and did not return the amount to him, while the person present on behalf of the defendant submitted a memorandum of response to the lawsuit, pleading in It concluded by not accepting the lawsuit for filing it against someone without legal capacity, and therefore the court ruled to reject the lawsuit and contact the competent authorities regarding inquiries about the previous owner of the vehicle.

During the hearing of the case, the plaintiff indicated that he had purchased the vehicle from the showroom, but no sales contract had been drawn up, and that the vehicle had been thoroughly inspected and no defect was found in it, but after a year had passed and when it was renewed, the inspection employee informed him that there was a hit on the “chassis”. Changing it will result in the vehicle being written off, while the person present on behalf of the defendant commented that the plaintiff bought the vehicle from its owner, that the showroom only made a price quote for the vehicle, and that the plaintiff handed over the amounts to the vehicle owner, indicating that he had communicated with the previous owner of the vehicle after the incident. dispute, and no solution was reached.

For its part, the court explained in the merits of its ruling that what is established from reviewing the papers and from the plaintiff’s closing memorandum is that the vehicle subject of the lawsuit belongs to the plaintiff and that he bought it from another person, while the sales contract was issued by the defendant’s showroom. Therefore, the plaintiff had to file the lawsuit against the owner of the vehicle and not against him. The defendant (the accuser), and therefore the defense raised by the defendant not to accept the lawsuit, to file it against someone who has no legal capacity, was correct in law, and the court ruled not to accept the lawsuit, according to what was stated in the reasons, and obligated the plaintiff to pay the expenses.

. Court: The showroom played the role of mediator, and the plaintiff had to file a lawsuit against the previous owner of the vehicle.