The Client commissioned the Law Firm to handle a case for the refund of an advance payment he had made while waiting for the technical condition of a used car he was interested in purchasing to be inspected. The court of first instance awarded the Client the amount of the advance payment, along with statutory interest for delay and litigation costs.
In the facts of the case, the seller posted an offer to sell the car on an online portal. The Client agreed with the seller that after the Client paid the advance payment, the seller would commission a technical inspection of the vehicle to confirm the car’s specifications as listed in the offer. The Client paid the advance payment. However, it turned out that a different car – an older one with inferior technical specifications than the one described in the listing – had been subjected to the technical inspection. Consequently, the Client requested that the seller refund the advance payment, which the seller failed to do.
During the proceedings, the seller maintained that the advance payment was in fact a deposit, and that the parties had entered into a preliminary agreement for the sale of an older car with inferior technical specifications. The court of first instance found the seller’s claims to be unproven.
The court of first instance agreed with the arguments presented by the Law Firm’s lawyers that the seller had not delivered to the Client the subject of the contract with the characteristics specified in the advertisement (offer), so the Client was entitled to withdraw from the contract, which necessitated the refund of the advance payment. The Client’s claim was upheld.
The judgment is not final.