P'ninat Mishpat: Used Car with a Faulty Motor | Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Beit Midrash

Beit Midrash

Sections
Chemdat Yamim
P'ninat Mishpat

קטגוריה משנית

Female Lesson Parashat Hashavua Series'Library Piskei Din (Hebrew)Test Yourself

Case: The plaintiff (=pl) bought a used car from the defendant (=def) for 51,500 NIS. Pl and def went together to an auto-testing center before the sale and, due to certain engine imperfections the center discovered, several thousand NIS were reduced from the car’s catalogue price. On pl’s way home from buying the car, the car shook significantly at high speed. Pl called def immediately, and def assured him that the problem had not existed before. Pl’s mechanic tried making several changes, but the problem persisted. Pl then took the car to a manufacturer’s servicing center, which diagnosed the problem as serious and due to def’s neglect. Pl is demanding to declare mekach ta’ut (nullified transaction based on misrepresentation), thereby receiving the sales price back, along with payment for expenses for trying to check and then fix the problems. He also asks money for time spent and mental anguish (pl had to get a leave from active reserve duty to arrange for the purchase, as his wife needed a car). Def said that he was unaware of any problems and since they had the car checked at a qualified center, def had the price reduced due to imperfections, and he offered 4,000 NIS toward fixing or replacing the engine, pl can no longer claim bitul mekach (nullifying the sale).

Ruling: One question is whether to trust the testing center or the manufacturer’s service center. Beit din received permission to ask a third, neutral expert to evaluate the findings. It resembled more closely the findings of the service center.
Based on these serious findings, which were unknown to pl at the time of purchase, there are grounds for bitul mekach if pl acted on them in a timely fashion(see Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 232:6). This is the case here, as pl contacted def right away and after failing in his attempt to fix the problems, asked to return the car and get his money back. The fact that he continued using it, which usually undoes the possibility of bitul mekach, is not impactful here because pl did so only because def did not agree to return the money. The expert testimony said that it is highly likely that def experienced similar shaking before he sold it, but mekach ta’ut applies even when the seller was unaware (Rama, CM 232:18). Since the matter is not based on fault, it also does not make a difference that a testing center was involved. If the problem was based on things they had discovered, then pl would be deemed to have been mochel on them, but in fact, the serious problems were things that were not likely to be found with a computer-based check.
The expectation that def was aware of "symptoms" about which he did not inform pl is significant in that it makes def liable for the expenses that pl spent on trying to fix the car. This is coupled with the fact that def was uncooperative in the process of adjudication, which is also grounds for his being responsible for paying the cost of beit din and a small fee for mental anguish.