Logo myautomagazin.com

“Ready To Drive” Does Not Apply For Longer

Table of contents:

“Ready To Drive” Does Not Apply For Longer
“Ready To Drive” Does Not Apply For Longer

Video: “Ready To Drive” Does Not Apply For Longer

Video: “Ready To Drive” Does Not Apply For Longer
Video: [FIXED] The Device Is Not Ready Error Issue (100% Working) 2023, June

The Federal Court of Justice has clarified the term “ready to drive”. Car buyers can only expect the car to drive at the moment it is handed over - what comes next is irrelevant.

The word “ready to drive” in the sales contract for a used car does not mean a durability guarantee for its engine. That has now been decided by the Federal Court of Justice. If the vehicle was operational and roadworthy within the meaning of the TÜV at the time of handover, according to the BGH the criterion “ready to drive” does not apply simply because the engine has to be repaired or replaced after a maximum of 2000 kilometers.

«… even a minimal driving distance»

According to the judges, proper operation of the car is no longer given if it is not in a position to "cover even a minimal distance" when it is handed over to the buyer due to serious technical defects.

In the negotiated case, a private person had bought a car registered for the company and over nine years old from the managing director of a company for 4,400 euros. Shortly after the purchase, however, the new owner found out in a workshop "that the functionality of the engine is no longer guaranteed in the long term due to existing defects in the engine block and cylinder head". A motor vehicle expert considered imminent engine damage to be possible under extreme stress, but did not want to rule out that the car could still cover another 1,000 to 2,000 kilometers.

According to the judges, the seller for ensuring that the car would remain ready to drive for a longer distance even after the handover (durability guarantee) was not taken over by the defendant managing director. A corresponding declaration is missing in the sales contract, so that the buyer has no claims.

With their decision, the BGH judges rejected the buyer's appeal. They thereby confirmed the decisions of the Regional Court of Ellwangen and the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Stuttgart (Az: VIII ZR 72/06 - judgment of November 22, 2006). The buyer had waived warranty claims in an oral agreement. (dpa)

Popular by topic