P'ninat Mishpat: A Used Car with a Tendency for Engine Problems | Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Beit Midrash

Beit Midrash

Sections
Chemdat Yamim
P'ninat Mishpat

קטגוריה משנית

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

Case: The plaintiff (=pl) bought a used car from the defendant (=def) for 24,000 NIS. Months before, def had major engine problems, and instead of doing a major overhaul, did a cheaper repair that his mechanic said would not be optimal and would leave the car needing a lot of added motor oil. Def decided to sell the car and told pl that after its problems were fixed, the car was almost fine except for the oil consumption, and accurately quoted a second mechanic who said the car could drive another 100,000 kilometers. Def did not tell pl what he had learned, that this make of car had a tendency toward engine problems. Three months after buying the car, pl had major engine problems, and def’s mechanic recommended changing the engine. Pl demands to return the car for its sales price and to be compensated for expenses, because def did not tell him about the car’s problems and bad prospects. Def responds that he gave sufficient information specific to this car, and pl could have found out about the make’s problems through available information.

Ruling: The dayanim disagreed on the ruling.

Dayan 1: It appears and is not disproven that def told enough about the specific car. Pl knew that he had to be careful about oil, which is a clear sign of a car at risk. The article that def but not pl had seen discouraged buying this type of car, due to high risk of great expense, but def did not necessarily know the extent of his car’s problem. It is true that mekach ta’ut (null sale due to unknown problems) applies even if the seller also did not know the problem (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 232:11). The gemara (Ketubot 75b) posits that if the buyer could readily have found out about the blemish, he is not able to nullify the sale, and the Maggid Mishneh (Mechira 15:3) rules this way. The Shvut Yaakov (III:169) claims that although one can back out of a mekach ta’ut even if time goes by after discovering the problem, if he could have known about the problem before the sale, he cannot nullify the sale. The Aruch Hashulchan (CM 232:5) disagrees in practice because the buyer does not have to suspect the seller of tricking him. However, in this case, pl had further impetus to look into problems with this car because def had told him about the oil consumption and a check of the meaning of this problem would not have been difficult or expensive. Therefore, pl cannot extract money from def. While def could have given a more pessimistic picture, which is likely more accurate, he is not required to be generous with information.

Dayan 2 – Since the head mechanic had clearly given def a very pessimistic picture, and def chose to share with pl only the optimistic statement-in-passing of a junior mechanic, def misinformed pl. Therefore, def must return the sales price minus 2,000 NIS which reflects the use pl got from the car until the severe problems arose.

Dayan 3 – Def did not act properly, but based on dayan 1’s reasoning, pl still cannot claim mekach ta’ut. Under those circumstances, I would have preferred to make a compromise, but since my colleagues thought it is right in this case to rule based on straight Halacha, I agree with dayan 1 not to nullify the sale.