The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal for Family and Civil and Administrative Cases annulled a ruling by the Court of First Instance that annulled the car sale contract and obligated the seller to return the amount of 180,000 dirhams, the price of the car, and 20,000 dirhams as compensation.
And she pointed out that «the plaintiff had to sue the bank in the case, considering it to be the party with the capacity in the car purchase contract from the defendant».
The details of the case go back to the fact that a woman filed a lawsuit against a man who sold her a car, demanding that the sale contract be annulled, and considered as if it did not exist, and obligating the defendant to return the paid amount, which is 180 thousand dirhams, and obliging him to pay her 50 thousand dirhams in compensation for the deterioration of her psychological and nervous condition. , and exposing her to permanent danger while driving, while obligating him to pay 14 thousand dirhams, the value of the bank’s Murabaha on the car, in addition to fees and expenses. The plaintiff indicated that she had bought a vehicle from the defendant at a value of 180,000 dirhams, and after using it for a period of not more than five months, the car stopped suddenly, so she took it to the agency for repair, because the vehicle was still under warranty, so that it became clear to her that the seller was not the first owner of the vehicle, as He claimed, and that there was no guarantee on it, that it had been in an accident while it was with its actual first owner, and therefore it could not be repaired.
The woman considered that the defendant cheated her, because she had paid enough to buy a similar car without accidents and under warranty.
The Court of First Instance ruled to annul the contract for the sale of the car in question, return the contracting parties to the state they were in before the contract, and oblige the defendant to pay the plaintiff the value paid, 20 thousand dirhams in comprehensive compensation, and 14 thousand dirhams the value of the Murabaha, and obliged him to pay fees and expenses.
The judgment was not acceptable to the defendant, so he appealed to him, accusing him of making a mistake, when he decided to rescind the contract despite the fact that there is no contract between the appellant and the appellee, and the contract submitted in the case is the one concluded between the appellant and the bank. It has not been proven that the latter was entered and abbreviated.
And the Court of Appeal indicated in the reasons for its ruling that it is decided, according to the Civil Transactions Law, that the contract is binding on both sides, and that whoever undertakes a contract by himself for his own account is the one who is bound by the consequences of it. Also, it is not permissible for the mortgagor to dispose of the pledged in possession except with the acceptance of the mortgagor, and if this disposal is a sale, then the right of the mortgagor is transferred to the price of the pledged property, indicating that it is clear from the papers that the appellant (the defendant) sold the car subject of the lawsuit to the bank, which in turn sold it to The respondent (the plaintiff) under a Murabaha contract with the mortgage of the car in favor of the bank, which means that there is no direct contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.
The court indicated that the appellant aims in her case to terminate the car sale contract, which requires her to litigate the bank in the case, considering it to be the relevant party in the car purchase contract from the defendant, whose termination is required, and which was the reason for the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.
The court decided to annul the appealed ruling and again judge the inadmissibility of the case, because it was filed without a full capacity, and obligated the appellant to pay the expenses.
#woman #buys #unrepairable #car #dirhams