Shabbat Parashat Eikev 5785

P'ninat Mishpat: A Used Car with a Tendency Toward Engine Problems

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 (=mech1) said would not be optimal and would leave the car needing a lot of added motor oil. Def took mech1’s advice to sell the car and quoted to pl what a second mechanic (=mech2) told him, that the car was basically fine except for the oil consumption, and 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 mech1 recommended changing the engine. Pl demands to return the car for its sales price and 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: [In the ruling, which we featured on this past Parashat Emor, there were three different analyses of the dayanim, but the majority agreed that pl had too much access to information prior to the purchase to nullify it. Now we see the judgment of the appeal panel.]

The first question requested to be reconsidered is about the difference between the way def told pl about the problem with the car and the actuality. The gemara (Bava Batra 83b) says that if one bought an object with the understanding it was of poor quality and it was of poor quality, he may not back out of the sale. The Ran (accepted by the S’ma 233:4) asks that this is obvious and therefore says that the gemara is referring to a case where it is of an even lower quality than he understood, and still the sale is valid. Arguably, that is the case here. However, we believe that an engine that is likely to stop working in a relatively short amount of time is of a different category of problem. Shut Maharil Diskin (166) applied the same idea to a horse suffering from a worse disease than the buyer told about.

Since pl chose to not just describe the symptoms but cite an expert (mech2), it was wrong to not cite mech1. This is strengthened by the fact that def followed mech1’s advice (to sell the car) and by the fact that def did not cooperate with the appeal panel’s request to provide information for beit din’s expert to give a third opinion.

Def claimed that he suspects that pl did not add as much oil as he was told to, which caused the engine to be ruined. Considering that the sale was nullified, it turns out that pl became a “watchman” over it, and def claims that he was negligent as such. According to Torah law, he would have to swear that he added as much oil as he should have, and in lieu of that, and in consideration of the fact that pl ended up using a car that was not his, we will reduce 4,000 NIS from what pl should get. Def should now pay 20,000 NIS.

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend