ZELDA VENTER
THE fact that a car was purchased on a “voetstoots" basis does not prevent the purchaser from being reimbursed if the seller knew of the latent defects.
This is especially so if the problems were not disclosed and in fact deliberately concealed with the intention to defraud the purchaser.
This is according to the Bloemfontein High Court, which granted permission to the buyer of the vehicle to cancel his contract of sale and ordered the dealership to refund him for the vehicle.
Adriaan Meiring turned to court to get his money back from RC Auto after he had discovered soon after he bought his dream vehicle that it had in fact been in an accident in the past.
This, in spite of the dealership maintaining that the vehicle was accident-free.
Meiring, who is disabled, required an automatic vehicle so that he did not have to shift gears manually.
He found his vehicle at RC Auto where a salesperson showed him a double cab Ford Ranger Wildtrack for R360 000.
After a test drive and being assured it had a full service record and was accident-free, Meiring bought the vehicle in cash.
But soon afterwards, things went wrong. The rear passenger door did not open, the vehicle swerved to the right side of the road and pulled to the left whenever the brakes were used.
Meiring also complained that the sensors were defective. The dealership repaired the sensors at its own cost.
A few days later, the sensors again stopped functioning, so he took the vehicle to a Ford dealership for a quotation to repair it as well as for the 60,000 kilometres major service.
He was subsequently given a report done by the Ford dealership, in which it came to light that the service history of the vehicle was not up to date and that it had been involved in a serious collision.
Meiring then told RC Auto from where he had bought the vehicle about the problems, and they maintained it was accident-free.
Things came to a head when he drove to the Cape and all four tyres had to be replaced due to wear and tear caused by defective shock mountings, which also had to be replaced.
All this was ascribed to the previous accident. Upon scanning the registration disk, it was discovered it had been in an accident - a fact which was confirmed during a technical inspection.
It was also discovered that the vehicle was bought by the dealership from an entity which sells accident-damaged vehicles and salvaged cars.
Meiring subsequently took the vehicle for a technical inspection to confirm all the problems and the fact that it had been in an accident.
In denying any liability, the dealership said that when Meiring viewed the vehicle for the first time, he was told of the defects and that it was a respray - a result of the vehicle being involved in a collision.
The dealership said Meiring signed an acknowledgement confirming that he inspected the vehicle and found it in good condition and that all defects had been pointed out.
It said the vehicle was sold as “voetstoots” and argued that Meiring could not expect a refund.
In ruling in Meiring’s favour, the court said he is not an expert who could identify the defects. His opportunity to inspect the vehicle was only during his drive to the Cape.
He wanted to buy an accident and defect-free vehicle, but the dealership sold something completely different from that, the court found.