AutoBeta(AutoBeta.net)03/31 Report--

The imported second-hand Mercedes-Benz was sold as a new car, and the court ruled that there was no compensation at first instance. After the car owner appealed and provided strong evidence, the final seller was awarded 3.35 million yuan in compensation. Recently, the China Consumer Daily, which is in charge of the State Administration of Market Supervision and Administration and sponsored by the China Consumer Association, disclosed the incident of protecting the rights of Mercedes-Benz owners.

Car purchase experience

On November 1, 2017, Mr. Liang signed a "car sales contract" with Shenzhen Qianxing Technology Company to buy a black 17 Mercedes-Benz GLS 450 at a net price of 1.117 million yuan (excluding vehicle license fees). On the day of signing the contract, Mr. Liang Qianxing Technology Company paid a deposit of 100000 yuan and paid another 1017000 yuan within three days.

Subsequently, Qianxing Technology Company handed over the car and materials to Mr. Liang. Mr. Liang also knew that the above-mentioned vehicle was not a Chinese specification version, did not enjoy the original factory warranty and did not apply the automobile three-guarantee laws and regulations, so guaranteed that the forward technology company would not pursue the above warranty and three-guarantee liability in the future; and remarked that "this car is a new car with no accident, no repair and no maintenance, with a mileage of 115 km and delivery of no more than 120 km".

Later, Mr. Liang found that the car was not a new car, it had been licensed as early as August 2016, and there was a maintenance record. After providing some evidence, Mr. Liang sued Qianxing Technology Co., Ltd., advocating "refund one for three".

The first instance was rejected for lack of evidence.

The car involved was not a new car shipped in 2017, but was licensed as early as August 29, 2016, Mr. Liang said.

To prove this fact, Mr. Liang provided a copy of the "valuation sheet" issued by Guangzhou Renfu Automobile sales and Service Co., Ltd., which showed that the license date of the vehicle involved was August 29, 2016.

At the same time, Mr. Liang provided the "vehicle Evaluation report" with the "Special Seal for testing of good cars". The evaluation report shows that the type of service is used car testing; the vehicle leaves the factory on March 5, 2017; the assessment results are: slight oil leakage of the engine, spray paint removal of the front cover, and fuel pump failure.

Mr. Liang also provided the court with a "vehicle history report" issued by the American Little Fox Company, which was not certified by the Chinese Embassy and Consulate in the United States. According to the report, the last released odometer reading of the vehicle involved was 6263. The first owner bought the car in 2016 and the second owner bought it in 2017. The report also details the history of the recall and maintenance of the vehicle involved.

In order to prove that the vehicle involved is a new car, Qianxing Technology Company has provided evidence such as the "Agent purchase Agreement", the payment certificate, the certificate of import of goods, the vehicle consistency certificate of compulsory product certification, and the inspection list of imported motor vehicles.

The evidence provided by Qianxing Technology Company shows that the vehicle involved left the United States in March 2017 and arrived at Dalian Customs on September 2, 2017. the import formalities were completed by Dalian Hongjing Import Automobile sales Co., Ltd. on September 25, 2017, Qianxing Technology Company paid 920000 yuan for the vehicle involved, and Dalian Customs signed the goods import certificate on October 9, 2017.

The people's Court of Qianhai Cooperation Zone in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province held that the "valuation sheet" provided by Mr. Liang did not have the original, and that the content of the "valuation sheet" contradicted the factory date in the vehicle Evaluation report. The vehicle History report was formed in the United States without certification procedures and does not meet the standard of evidence. And the evidence provided by Mr. Liang is issued by the commercial organization of automobile sales and after-sales service, not an independent automobile quality appraisal agency. Therefore, Mr Leung's claim is not based on facts, nor can it prove that the forward Technology Company has committed fraud in the process of selling the vehicles involved.

The court of first instance ruled that Mr. Liang's claim was rejected and the acceptance fee of 42555 yuan for the first instance was borne by Mr. Liang.

"reversal" of the second instance

Dissatisfied with the above judgment, Mr. Liang appealed to the Shenzhen Intermediate people's Court of Guangdong Province in July 2018.

Mr. Liang submitted the following evidence: 1. Notarization of the online service provided by the Ohio Motor vehicle Administration by the federal government of the State of Pennsylvania, used to certify that the first owner of the vehicle involved was issued a property right certificate by the Ohio Motor vehicle Administration on September 6, 2016, the owner of the vehicle was changed by the Ohio Motor vehicle Administration on May 31, 2017, and the owner of the vehicle was changed again on June 2, 2017, as of July 12, 2017. The vehicle involved has traveled 6263 miles, or about 10079 kilometers, which is seriously inconsistent with the "current mileage of 115km" and "delivery of no more than 120km" stipulated in the car sales contract.

two。 The federal government of Pennsylvania notarized the CARFAX vehicle history report to prove that the vehicle involved experienced two transactions in Ohio in 2016. the first owner bought the car on August 29th, 2016. on February 23,2017, the car was recalled by the manufacturer because the console latch bumper stopped movement. the status is a remedial measure, and the vehicle involved has serious quality problems. The information is confirmed by the registration information of the Ohio Motor vehicle Administration.

3. The bills issued by Guangdong Longxing Junyi Automobile, Guangzhou Jindingxing and Guangzhou Renfu Motor jointly prove that the license date of the vehicle involved is August 29, 2016, which is much earlier than the purchase date and license date of Mr. Liang.

In addition, during the second trial, the court investigated the production date of the vehicle involved in the case to Beijing Mercedes-Benz sales and Service Co., Ltd., and Beijing Mercedes-Benz replied on November 2, 2018 that the car was produced on August 2, 2016 and was produced in the United States.

The court held that the reply issued by Beijing Mercedes-Benz regarding the production time of the vehicle involved in the case was August 2, 2016, compared with the compulsory Product Certification vehicle Conformance Certificate and the goods Import Certificate submitted by forward Technology Company certifying that the vehicle manufacturing date was March 2017, the compulsory Product Certification vehicle Conformance Certificate is provided to third-party companies. The Import Certificate of goods clearly states that the vehicle information provided by the "consignee of imported goods or its agent" has not been examined by the relevant administrative departments, taking into account factors such as the popularity of Mercedes-Benz cars and the data directly controlled by the production enterprises. Obviously, the reply issued by Beijing Mercedes-Benz has greater probative power, so our hospital accepts the reply from Beijing Mercedes-Benz. That is, the production time of the vehicle involved is August 2, 2016.

In summary, the court decided to overturn the relevant evidence submitted by Qianxing Technology Company in the first instance to prove that the vehicle involved in the case was a new car, while Qianxing Technology Company did not submit new evidence. The court of second instance accepted the new evidence provided by Mr. Liang that there was a record of the sale and use of the vehicle in the United States.

The court held that the vehicle delivered by the forward technology company to Mr. Liang under the sales contract should be a flawless new car, but the production date and use of the vehicle involved in the sale did not conform to the agreement. It should be determined that the forward technology company deliberately concealed the true situation of the vehicle in the process of vehicle sales, and the act constituted fraud.

On July 29, 2019, the court made a final appeal and reversed the judgment of first instance, and Mr. Liang's appeal was partially upheld. Mr. Liang's Mercedes-Benz GLS 450 car was returned to Shenzhen Qianxing Technology Co., Ltd. within 15 days from the effective date of this judgment, Qianxing Technology refunded 1117000 yuan to Mr. Liang and paid three times the compensation totaling 3351000 yuan. The fee for accepting the case of the first instance of this case is 42555 yuan and that of the second instance is 42555 yuan, all of which are borne by Shenzhen Qianxing Technology.

Welcome to subscribe to the WeChat public account "Automotive Industry Focus" to get the first-hand insider information on the automotive industry and talk about things in the automotive circle. Welcome to break the news! WeChat ID autoWechat