Shabbat Parashat Vayeilech 5783

P'ninat Mishpat: Selling a Car with Flaws

Case: The plaintiff (=pl) bought a seven-seat used car from the defendant (=def). At the time of the sale, def told pl about problems with the gears system but not other problems. After pl used it for a while, he discovered that the car stalls. Pl demands that def pay for repairs, while def counters that he told pl about all of the problems.

Ruling: The definition of the blemishes that impact a sale depends on that which is accepted in a given time and place (Rambam, Mechira 15:5; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 232:6). Even when a seller provides a blemished sales item without being aware of it, the buyer can demand that the sale be voided (Chulin 51a). When it is unclear whether the blemish existed at the time of the sale, we apply the rule that the one in possession of the money in question gets to keep it (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 232:16). These rules could be affected by the presence of a written agreement, but there was none in this case.  

Even when there are grounds for nullifying a sale due to blemishes, the buyer cannot do so if he was aware of the blemish when he bought it or when he used the object after becoming aware of the blemish (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 232:7). However, if he checked the object but did not find the blemishes, he can make a claim upon finding out about them.

When there is a possibility to fix the blemishes without having a major impact on the nature of the sale, the seller has the right to make that repair and salvage the sale (ibid. 5). Regarding a case where the basic sale is workable, and the buyer wants to preserve the sale but demands compensation to enable repair of the blemishes, there is a machloket among Acharonim on the matter (see ruling 74031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit beit din network). It is logical that it is not possible to make such a claim when the price of repair does not make sense according to the value of the object. Then, the buyer has to choose between backing out of the sale and keeping the object as is.

In this case, we conclude that def informed pl about the problem with the gears but not about the engine trouble that causes stalling. We therefore obligate def to pay for repairs of the latter, as the repairs are modest in comparison to the price of the car. While the problems with the gears are now greater than described originally, it is possible that this deterioration happened after the sale, and so we will not obligate def for that.  

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend