Shabbat Parashat Vayigash 5783

P'ninat Mishpat: The Sale of a Seriously Flawed Car

Case: The defendant (=def), from the north of Israel, sold a used car (2011 model) to the plaintiff (=pl) for 38,000 NIS, which is below the catalogue price, after informing pl that the car has faulty fuel injection that needs fixing. Pl drove home to Jerusalem, where he planned to take it to his garage to fix, but along the way, he did not like the way the car was driving and had it towed to his garage. After fixing the fuel injection, the car still did not work properly, and mechanics claimed there were serious problems in the motor and the transmission; the estimated cost to fix it was 20,000 NIS. Pl therefore wants to void the sale and recover the money he paid along with 7,912 NIS (not including the towing) for the attempts to fix the car. Def responds that he is not convinced the other problems with the car existed before its sale; rather, it is likely that the long trip to Jerusalem before fixing the fuel injection caused them. Additionally, by not checking out the car, pl waived his rights to complain about the flaws.   

Ruling: Beit din took testimony from the mechanic in Jerusalem and the car company’s auto center in Ashdod, who dealt with the car, and took special interest in the latter testimony due to their expertise. There was unanimity that the trip did not cause a problem to the transmission, and the Ashdod expert did not think it was likely that the general motor problem was from it either. Therefore, beit din posits that the problems existed before the sale. Due to both the expense and the centrality of these problems, pl can void the sale (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 232).

There is generally a machloket (Maggid Mishneh, Mechira 15:3 – yes; Mishneh Lamelech ad loc. - no) whether waiving the opportunity to check for blemishes precludes later voiding the sale due to them. However, in this case, the Maggid Mishneh will agree that he can still void the sale because the necessary check to find the relevant problems is expensive, and it could not have been effectively done before the fuel injection was fixed, which was agreed to be after the sale. Therefore, the sale is determined to be retroactively void.

When pl made the repairs (7,912 NIS), both sides thought he would be keeping the car, and therefore the outlays were done appropriately and pl deserves reimbursement. However, not all of the repairs were necessary, and therefore 4514 NIS suffices. The towing was not something that helped def and was pl’s prerogative, and therefore he shall not be reimbursed for it.

The fact that the car switched ownership another time decreases its value to def, but that is not pl’s problem. However, pl should allow def to sell it without first returning it to def’s official ownership in order to not further reduce the value in a misleading manner. 

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend