An auto sales contract was declared null and void by the Al Ain Court of First Instance, which ordered the vendor to pay back the customer 100,000 dirhams.
The court highlighted that the vendor does not have the legal right to sell the car because it is registered under the name of another person.
Buyer's Claims and Evidence
A young man initiated legal proceedings, asserting that he should be compensated with 100,000 dirhams and additional fees. He claimed to have purchased a vehicle for 105,000 dirhams from the defendant, with 99,000 dirhams paid through a bank transfer and an additional 1,000 dirhams for insurance.
Later, he discovered that the vehicle did not belong to the seller, and the true owner had circulated and sold it to someone else. Supporting documents included a copy of the vehicle sales contract, telephone correspondence, and a bank statement.
Defendant's Counterclaim
In response, the defendant filed a cross-claim seeking dismissal of the original lawsuit. He demanded the cross-defendant pay him 120,000 dirhams, along with fees and expenses. He asserted that he had sold the vehicle to the cross-defendant, who used it for 107 days, causing damages that required substantial repair expenses. The defendant provided repair invoices and a vehicle rental quote as evidence.
The Court's'sindings and Rulings
During questioning, the defendant acknowledged that the vehicle was registered in another person's name, explaining that the failure to transfer ownership to the plaintiff resulted from faults in the vehicle. He argued that the full amount had not been paid, receiving only 99,000 dirhams.
The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, annulling the sales contract due to the defendant's inability to fulfil obligations. The court obligated the defendant to repay 100,000 dirhams to the plaintiff and cover the associated expenses.
In the cross-claim, the court rejected the defendant's demands, stating that the original case had already nullified the sales contract. The court found no obligation on the cross-defendant's part to compensate the cross-claimant. Consequently, the cross-claim was rejected, and the plaintiff was ordered to cover expenses.
Legal Basis and Civil Transactions Law
The court justified its decision based on the Civil Transactions Law, affirming the plaintiff's right to terminate the contract as the vehicle's ownership was not transferred to his name. The court recognised the lack of a power of attorney authorising the defendant to sell or dispose of the vehicle, further supporting the plaintiff's request for contract termination.
