Al-Ain Court of First Instance rejected the case of a man who demanded to oblige a woman to return the sum of 50,000 dirhams for a car he bought from her, and she caught the price and refused to hand him over the car.
In the details, a man filed a lawsuit against a woman, demanding that she pay him 50 thousand dirhams or hand him over a car with fees and expenses, based on the fact that the defendant sold a Mercedes model 2017 and received the price and did not deliver the car.
The defendant submitted a reply memorandum in which she argued that the court had no jurisdiction locally to consider the case and insisted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of payment of the amount, explaining that the agreement was not completed, while the plaintiff submitted a commentary note holding that the defendant admitted before the Conciliation and Reconciliation Center that she had received 50 thousand dirhams for the price of the car When issuing the pledge of allegiance, he demanded that the Center for Conciliation and Reconciliation be addressed. He also insisted on looking at the cameras of a hospital in Abu Dhabi city to prove the fact that the defendant received the amount in cash inside the hospital.
The court heard the plaintiff’s witness, who testified, after taking the legal oath, that the defendant came and asked him to repair the vehicle, and while the vehicle was stopped in the workshop, she contacted him via “WhatsApp” and asked him in a voice message to hand over the car to the plaintiff and when she asked for the costs of repairing the vehicle, she decided that the plaintiff would pay the value of the vehicle. It was repaired and the car was parked in the workshop for six months, indicating that he was not present at the event of selling or buying the car.
The plaintiff asked for the decisive oath to be given to the defendant, and the defendant swore the decisive oath and denied all that came with her acknowledgment that she had received an amount of 3,500 dirhams of the value of the vehicle.
The court stated in the merits of the ruling, that it was established that the plaintiff relied on the conscience of the defendant and directed her the decisive oath, and it was established that the defendant swore the decisive oath not to be preoccupied with her obligation to the plaintiff with the price of the claimed vehicle, and therefore the decisive oath would have settled the dispute in the issues that were focused On her right.
She indicated that the defendant acknowledged to the plaintiff an amount of 3,500 dirhams of the value of the claim, and denied her preoccupation with the rest of the amount, and the dispute has been resolved by proving that the defendant is not preoccupied with this amount in favor of the plaintiff, and the case is within the amount of 3,500 dirhams only, true and proven by the defendant’s admission, and it ruled The court obligated the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of 3,500 dirhams and obligated the defendant to the appropriate expenses, and rejected the requests that exceeded that.
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news
Al-Ain Court of First Instance rejected the case of a man who demanded to oblige a woman to return the sum of 50,000 dirhams for a car he bought from her, and she caught the price and refused to hand him over the car.
In the details, a man filed a lawsuit against a woman, demanding that she pay him 50 thousand dirhams or hand him over a car with fees and expenses, based on the fact that the defendant sold a Mercedes model 2017 and received the price and did not deliver the car.
The defendant submitted a reply memorandum in which she argued that the court had no jurisdiction locally to consider the case and insisted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of payment of the amount, explaining that the agreement was not completed, while the plaintiff submitted a commentary note holding that the defendant admitted before the Conciliation and Reconciliation Center that she had received 50 thousand dirhams for the price of the car When issuing the pledge of allegiance, he demanded that the Center for Conciliation and Reconciliation be addressed. He also insisted on looking at the cameras of a hospital in Abu Dhabi city to prove the fact that the defendant received the amount in cash inside the hospital.
The court heard the plaintiff’s witness, who testified, after taking the legal oath, that the defendant came and asked him to repair the vehicle, and while the vehicle was stopped in the workshop, she contacted him via “WhatsApp” and asked him in a voice message to hand over the car to the plaintiff and when she asked for the costs of repairing the vehicle, she decided that the plaintiff would pay the value of the vehicle. It was repaired and the car was parked in the workshop for six months, indicating that he was not present at the event of selling or buying the car.
The plaintiff asked for the decisive oath to be given to the defendant, and the defendant swore the decisive oath and denied all that came with her acknowledgment that she had received an amount of 3,500 dirhams of the value of the vehicle.
The court stated in the merits of the ruling, that it was established that the plaintiff relied on the conscience of the defendant and directed her the decisive oath, and it was established that the defendant swore the decisive oath not to be preoccupied with her obligation to the plaintiff with the price of the claimed vehicle, and therefore the decisive oath would have settled the dispute in the issues that were focused On her right.
She indicated that the defendant acknowledged to the plaintiff an amount of 3,500 dirhams of the value of the claim, and denied her preoccupation with the rest of the amount, and the dispute has been resolved by proving that the defendant is not preoccupied with this amount in favor of the plaintiff, and the case is within the amount of 3,500 dirhams only, true and proven by the defendant’s admission, and it ruled The court obligated the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of 3,500 dirhams and obligated the defendant to the appropriate expenses, and rejected the requests that exceeded that.
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news
Al-Ain Court of First Instance rejected the case of a man who demanded to oblige a woman to return the sum of 50,000 dirhams for a car he bought from her, and she caught the price and refused to hand him over the car.
In the details, a man filed a lawsuit against a woman, demanding that she pay him 50 thousand dirhams or hand him over a car with fees and expenses, based on the fact that the defendant sold a Mercedes model 2017 and received the price and did not deliver the car.
The defendant submitted a reply memorandum in which she argued that the court had no jurisdiction locally to consider the case and insisted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of payment of the amount, explaining that the agreement was not completed, while the plaintiff submitted a commentary note holding that the defendant admitted before the Conciliation and Reconciliation Center that she had received 50 thousand dirhams for the price of the car When issuing the pledge of allegiance, he demanded that the Center for Conciliation and Reconciliation be addressed. He also insisted on looking at the cameras of a hospital in Abu Dhabi city to prove the fact that the defendant received the amount in cash inside the hospital.
The court heard the plaintiff’s witness, who testified, after taking the legal oath, that the defendant came and asked him to repair the vehicle, and while the vehicle was stopped in the workshop, she contacted him via “WhatsApp” and asked him in a voice message to hand over the car to the plaintiff and when she asked for the costs of repairing the vehicle, she decided that the plaintiff would pay the value of the vehicle. It was repaired and the car was parked in the workshop for six months, indicating that he was not present at the event of selling or buying the car.
The plaintiff asked for the decisive oath to be given to the defendant, and the defendant swore the decisive oath and denied all that came with her acknowledgment that she had received an amount of 3,500 dirhams of the value of the vehicle.
The court stated in the merits of the ruling, that it was established that the plaintiff relied on the conscience of the defendant and directed her the decisive oath, and it was established that the defendant swore the decisive oath not to be preoccupied with her obligation to the plaintiff with the price of the claimed vehicle, and therefore the decisive oath would have settled the dispute in the issues that were focused On her right.
She indicated that the defendant acknowledged to the plaintiff an amount of 3,500 dirhams of the value of the claim, and denied her preoccupation with the rest of the amount, and the dispute has been resolved by proving that the defendant is not preoccupied with this amount in favor of the plaintiff, and the case is within the amount of 3,500 dirhams only, true and proven by the defendant’s admission, and it ruled The court obligated the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of 3,500 dirhams and obligated the defendant to the appropriate expenses, and rejected the requests that exceeded that.
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news
Al-Ain Court of First Instance rejected the case of a man who demanded to oblige a woman to return the sum of 50,000 dirhams for a car he bought from her, and she caught the price and refused to hand him over the car.
In the details, a man filed a lawsuit against a woman, demanding that she pay him 50 thousand dirhams or hand him over a car with fees and expenses, based on the fact that the defendant sold a Mercedes model 2017 and received the price and did not deliver the car.
The defendant submitted a reply memorandum in which she argued that the court had no jurisdiction locally to consider the case and insisted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of payment of the amount, explaining that the agreement was not completed, while the plaintiff submitted a commentary note holding that the defendant admitted before the Conciliation and Reconciliation Center that she had received 50 thousand dirhams for the price of the car When issuing the pledge of allegiance, he demanded that the Center for Conciliation and Reconciliation be addressed. He also insisted on looking at the cameras of a hospital in Abu Dhabi city to prove the fact that the defendant received the amount in cash inside the hospital.
The court heard the plaintiff’s witness, who testified, after taking the legal oath, that the defendant came and asked him to repair the vehicle, and while the vehicle was stopped in the workshop, she contacted him via “WhatsApp” and asked him in a voice message to hand over the car to the plaintiff and when she asked for the costs of repairing the vehicle, she decided that the plaintiff would pay the value of the vehicle. It was repaired and the car was parked in the workshop for six months, indicating that he was not present at the event of selling or buying the car.
The plaintiff asked for the decisive oath to be given to the defendant, and the defendant swore the decisive oath and denied all that came with her acknowledgment that she had received an amount of 3,500 dirhams of the value of the vehicle.
The court stated in the merits of the ruling, that it was established that the plaintiff relied on the conscience of the defendant and directed her the decisive oath, and it was established that the defendant swore the decisive oath not to be preoccupied with her obligation to the plaintiff with the price of the claimed vehicle, and therefore the decisive oath would have settled the dispute in the issues that were focused On her right.
She indicated that the defendant acknowledged to the plaintiff an amount of 3,500 dirhams of the value of the claim, and denied her preoccupation with the rest of the amount, and the dispute has been resolved by proving that the defendant is not preoccupied with this amount in favor of the plaintiff, and the case is within the amount of 3,500 dirhams only, true and proven by the defendant’s admission, and it ruled The court obligated the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of 3,500 dirhams and obligated the defendant to the appropriate expenses, and rejected the requests that exceeded that.
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news