Many used vehicles, which consumers purchase in their daily lives as being free of defects, faults, accidents, and paintwork, are later found to have defects that were not visible at the time of purchase.
The law establishes that if a product purchased under Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 is defective or if the defects are subsequently discovered, the consumer has options regarding the defective product and may exercise one of these options.
Article 11 of Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 states:
“(1) If the goods are found to be defective, the consumer may exercise one of the following options:
a) Withdraw from the contract by declaring that they are ready to return the goods,
b) Retain the goods and request a discount on the sales price commensurate with the defect,
c) Request free repair of the goods, all costs being borne by the seller, unless an excessive expense is required,
ç) Request replacement of the goods with a defect-free equivalent, if possible. The seller is obligated to fulfill this request made by the consumer.”
According to the regulation, if the goods are found to be defective, the buyer/consumer has the right to withdraw from the contract, request a discount on the sales price commensurate with the defect, request free repair of the goods, and, if possible, request replacement of the goods with a defect-free equivalent.
Although the consumer has these four options by law, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation has not permitted the consumer to exercise these four options as they wish if it is later discovered that a used vehicle purchased without defects has been painted. In accordance with the decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, detailed below, it is accepted that if a used vehicle purchased without defects is later discovered to have been painted, the buyer may only claim from the seller the loss of value caused by the defect in the vehicle’s paint.
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF COURT … “…In this case, the consumer has the right to withdraw from the contract, have the service performed again, or receive a reduction in the price commensurate with the defect. If the consumer’s termination of the contract is not justified by the circumstances, a reduction in the price will be sufficient. The consumer may also seek compensation under the conditions specified in Article 4, along with one of these optional rights. The provider is obligated to fulfill the consumer’s chosen request.
When the concrete case is evaluated in light of these principles and concepts: The vehicle in question, purchased by the plaintiff, was delivered to the plaintiff on June 18, 2005, and used for five years. Following technical inspections conducted on the vehicle on April 2, 2010, due to the plaintiff’s intention to sell it, it was determined that the paint thickness on the hood, right front fender, and left center door exceeded the paint standard, as explained in the expert report. Although this technical inspection confirmed that the vehicle in question was defective, approximately five years had elapsed between the date of purchase and the date of the lawsuit. Considering that the vehicle has been used for a certain period of time and that the defect detected in the vehicle does not affect its use, it is understood that this defect only affects the vehicle’s value. Termination of the contract would have serious consequences for the defendants. When the vehicle’s value is compared with the loss of value caused by the defect in its paint, it is understood that a reduction in the price in proportion to the defect, rather than a refund, would be equitable.
The decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Supreme Court of Appeals stipulated that, because defects solely related to the paint on a purchased second-hand vehicle do not directly affect the vehicle’s use and because this defect only affects the vehicle’s value, the buyer can only request a reduction in the price in proportion to the defect. The Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that the buyer/consumer’s right to withdraw from the contract and demand a refund violates the principle of fairness. Therefore, for used cars purchased without defects, if it is later revealed that the vehicle has been repainted, the buyer/consumer can only claim from the seller the loss of value caused by the defect in the vehicle’s paint.