Information about hidden defects in cars

Questioner

I bought a car from a private individual. It turns out that it has hidden defects that the owner already knew about (info garage where car was serviced). I have cancelled the purchase in writing but the person has left for abroad. I have subsequently repaired the car myself because there was no cooperation in the cancellation. It now appears that the seller is back in the Netherlands. Can I summon him and claim the repair costs even though I have already terminated extrajudicially? Won't the judge say that I have already terminated extrajudicially?

Lawyer

Now that you were unable to return the car but still had it repaired and continued to use it, there is no question of termination. Apart from the fact that termination in a case where repair is still possible, is only possible if you have first put the person in default. Whether a notice of default was not necessary in this case because the seller has moved abroad is not a given. Only if it can be established that a notice of default was not necessary in your situation, you still have the option of a summons. Your question is difficult to answer without additional information and, as lawyers call it, all the circumstances of the case. For this, you must make clear what the defect was and whether this could really not have been noticed during a test drive and how serious the defect was. In order to determine whether legal proceedings are worthwhile, it is important to know when you bought the car in connection with possible limitation periods. In order to know whether legal proceedings are worthwhile, the repair costs are also important.

Lawyer

In addition to the story of colleague Gerda Laan. The fact that the car had (hidden) defects is not sufficient for compensation. According to case law, the buyer of an older second-hand car in particular must generally be aware of the possibility that defects will occur. In the event that a (second-hand) car is purchased in order to participate in traffic, as the seller knows, it must be assumed as a rule that the car does not correspond to the agreement if, as a result of a defect that cannot be easily discovered and repaired, such use of the car would endanger road safety. (simplified, the question is whether the car would pass an MOT) Whether you are entitled to compensation therefore strongly depends on all the facts and can hardly be answered in general. In general, compensation can still be claimed after extrajudicial dissolution. But colleague Gerda Laan is right that by (forcefully) continuing to use the car after repair, there can no longer be any question of extrajudicial dissolution.

Questioner

Dear expert, The car was 2 years old. During the test drive no special features. A few weeks later when it rained the car was soaking wet inside. It turns out that the car had damage and that the owner did not have it repaired (the garage supports that the seller went to him but found it too expensive). The owner also did not have the defects repaired after a maintenance service, he told the garage that he found this too expensive. He sold the car to me 2 months later as a car that was in tip top condition. He also indicated this in email correspondence. When I confronted him with the dealer's statement, he broke off all contact. He no longer responded to notices of default, etc., so I was forced to repair the car. It's now exactly one year later, I had the car repaired out of necessity. Can I claim the repair costs?

Lawyer

I think that in your case it can be said that the car did not meet the requirements that you were allowed to set for it based on the information provided by the seller. The seller knew that the car was damaged. Now that it is apparently the case that the damage has resulted in the car no longer being waterproof, the seller should have pointed this out to you. You have apparently had contact with the seller and he was therefore aware of your complaints. The limitation period is 5 years, so you can still summon the seller and I think you have a reasonable chance of success. You must take into account that you will have to pay court fees and the costs of the bailiff. You can claim these costs from the seller if you win the case. In addition, if you hand over the case, you must also pay the costs of a lawyer or attorney. You can only partially recover these costs from the seller. You must therefore consider whether you will not lose more money with a procedure than you can win. If you have a very low income, you may be able to use a lawyer who is paid for in whole or in part by the government.