In December 2024, Chen spotted a second-hand new energy vehicle sold by Company A online and reached a verbal agreement to purchase the vehicle. The total price of the vehicle was 205000 yuan, and Chen paid a deposit of 5000 yuan in advance. Subsequently, Chen fully paid the purchase price, Company A completed the vehicle delivery, and cooperated to transfer the vehicle to Chen's designated personnel.
After picking up the car, Chen incurred multiple expenses for purchasing insurance, testing and repairing the vehicle, but was still unable to handle the renaming procedures for the main user of the vehicle's exclusive app or in car system. According to official verification by the car manufacturer, the vehicle still has outstanding financial loans and is restricted by mortgage from changing the vehicle's machine permissions. There is a risk of remote power outages and car locks, and the basic functions of the vehicle are completely restricted.
Chen has repeatedly negotiated with Company A for car returns, refunds, and compensation for losses, but has been unsuccessful. Chen filed a lawsuit with Nanshan District People's Court in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, requesting the termination of the car purchase contract and demanding that Company A refund the purchase price and compensate for reasonable losses. Company A argues that the vehicle has been delivered and transferred, and that it has fulfilled all contractual obligations without any breach of contract.
The court believes that new energy vehicles are different from traditional vehicles, and their vehicle system is deeply bound to the vehicle series. If the main user of the new energy vehicle system cannot be changed, it will seriously weaken the vehicle's key functions such as remote control and battery charging, and there are significant privacy and security risks, which will bring substantial obstacles to new vehicle owners using the vehicle. Only completing the transfer of vehicle ownership cannot achieve the complete transfer of vehicle machine permissions, which is enough to prevent the fundamental purpose of consumers purchasing cars from being realized.
In this case, Company A, as a professional second-hand car sales agency, was unable to change the main user of the vehicle's infotainment system due to unpaid loans when selling the new energy vehicle involved in the case. The main functions of the vehicle's normal use could not be used, which means that after Chen purchased the vehicle involved in the case, he could not achieve his purpose of purchasing the vehicle. There were significant defects in Company A's performance of the main contract obligation to deliver qualified vehicles, which resulted in the inability to achieve Chen's contractual purpose. The court therefore determined that Company A constituted a fundamental breach of contract.
A company claims that it has cooperated with Chen to understand the condition of the vehicle. The vehicle has already traveled thousands of kilometers after delivery, so the responsibility for the vehicle defects should not be attributed to A company. In this regard, as the seller of the second-hand car sales contract, Company A's main contractual obligation is to deliver qualified vehicles. When the delivered vehicles cannot be used, even if the buyer did not discover this defect due to their own reasons at the time of delivery, Company A cannot be exempted from its quality defect guarantee responsibility as the seller. Especially as a professional institution for selling second-hand cars, Company A should exercise due diligence and truthfully disclose its obligations regarding the sold second-hand cars. If it fails to verify that the sold second-hand cars cannot be used due to loan issues and fails to fully disclose this major defect to the buyer, the buyer has the right to terminate the contract in accordance with the law.
In summary, the court ruled to terminate the vehicle sales contract between the two parties in accordance with the law. Company A will refund the full purchase price and compensate Chen for his insurance premiums and inspection and maintenance costs. The judgment has come into effect.
Many consumers have misconceptions about the buying and selling process of second-hand new energy vehicles, thinking that once the transfer of ownership and delivery of the vehicle are completed, everything will be fine. However, this is not the case. Unlike gasoline vehicles, the infotainment system of new energy vehicles is deeply linked to the vehicle, and user accounts control key permissions such as remote vehicle control, charging management, and driving settings; If the vehicle has not paid off the car loan, financial institutions may rely on the manufacturer's backend to ban accounts and remotely lock the vehicle. Although the above risks do not affect the transfer of vehicle ownership, they may result in the inability to use the vehicle normally after purchase.
The judge reminds that second-hand car operating institutions need to comprehensively verify vehicle information, truthfully disclose situations such as vehicle mortgages, loans, and restricted vehicle permissions, and prevent concealment and fraudulent transactions. Otherwise, they will bear corresponding breach of contract responsibilities. When consumers purchase second-hand cars, in addition to routine vehicle condition checks, they must verify the financial status and vehicle authorization of the vehicle, sign a written contract to clarify breach of contract responsibilities, retain complete transaction vouchers, and protect their rights in case of disputes in accordance with the law to prevent losses in vehicle transactions.
This article is transferred from the WeChat official account "Shandong Gaofa". Thank you!