‘Tis the season when many a consumer gets the urge to spend and splurge on all sorts, both the necessary and the unnecessary. The act of carefully inspecting the object about to be purchased and asking about the store’s return policy one last time before swiping that card is the joy of consumerism.
However, no matter how careful one is with their examination, some defects simply remain undetected, becoming evident only upon use of the object.
It is helpful to imagine a person purchasing a car. Where even if defects are not immediately evident, such as rust or scratches on the car’s body, it is common practice to have the car inspected by a trusted mechanic prior to purchase; to have a watchful eye looking past the shiny body for any issues that might be hidden beneath the surface. Notwithstanding, one would tend to close an eye and not expect a new vehicle to have any hidden defects.
A number of defects which one might expect to encounter in a second-hand car might not necessarily be detected during one test drive. Noises developing from the bumper, damages to the steering, rattling of seats, and faults in the radio, tend to rise to the surface over a period of time, and while some of these issues might be encountered on a second-hand car, they are definitely not expected when purchasing a brand-new vehicle.
On December 7, the First Hall Civil Court decided on a case dealing with the same merits above (case ref no. 892/2016 GM).
The plaintiff purchased a brand-new car from a company and started noticing that certain defects were arising far too often. She went to the company for repairs several times, so much so that the receptionist had learnt the car’s number plate by heart.
After seven months of going back and forth, the woman eventually gave up and decided she no longer wanted the car, leaving it back in the company’s possession. No matter how much the company tried to convince her that all the defects had been eliminated, she simply refused to take the vehicle back and wanted to be reimbursed.
Aside from a faulty radio, a problematic bumper and constant rattling noises, the plaintiff also complained that, at times, the car’s engine would simply not start. A number of times, the vehicle also remained in the company’s possession for repairs for three weeks at a time, during which, the purchaser was not given an alternative vehicle to use.
Article 1424 of the Civil Code states: “The seller is bound to warrant the thing sold against any latent defects which render it unfit for the use for which it is intended, or which diminish its value to such an extent that the buyer would not have bought it or would have tendered a smaller price, if he had been aware of them.”
In its deliberations, the court noted that not every irregularity in function translates to a defect
Whereas both vendor and purchaser had agreed that the car had defects, they did not agree on each defect as alleged by the plaintiff. The company argued that it did everything it could to keep the purchaser content, at times going the extra mile and completely replacing certain parts of the vehicle which could have otherwise been fixed through simple adjustments, repairs and changes to the settings.
In its deliberations, the court noted that not every irregularity in function translates to a defect. This, in turn, makes it harder for one to establish what falls within the exact parameters of a latent defect or those of an irregularity, particularly when the latter is technological.
The court expert appointed to the case reported that he did not find any defects in the vehicle; however, the court was still morally convinced that the car did actually have a number of defects. The court stated that what really matters is the state of the vehicle on the date of purchase, and not that of the present, since a person purchasing a new car expects it to be without any latent problems and with no expectation to run back and forth, to and from the mechanic.
The court also noted that the plaintiff had paid the full price of the vehicle upon purchase, thus ruling out the possibility of this being a case of the plaintiff filing suit to attempt to wriggle out of having to make any further payments.
The defendant argued that since the vehicle moved, it was enough to satisfy the scope for which it had been purchased. The court, however, disagreed and highlighted that the case would have been very different had the defect been fixed in a short period of time without any major inconvenience to the plaintiff.
The court remained convinced that the plaintiff would not have purchased the vehicle from the defendant company had she known what she would be going through over the coming months.
The court ordered that the contract of sale be rescinded, also ordering that the plaintiff be reimbursed the full price she paid for the vehicle, including the price she paid for its registration.
Moreover, the court noted that during the period when the vehicle was being repaired, the plaintiff was lent a vehicle from a relative to get by. The court interestingly remarked that while the plaintiff deserved compensation for this, it was not going to award any in its judgment, stating that such damages should have quantified during the lawsuit itself, with no speculations being made by the court.
Since the court took no further decision regarding the appropriate amount of compensation deserved by the plaintiff, she was only awarded the reimbursement of the full value of the vehicle.
This judgment may still be appealed.
Rebecca Mercieca is an associate at Azzopardi, Borg & Associates Advocates.