At the beginning of 20 19, Mr. Huang's son-in-law Mei Peng decided to buy a Q5L car in Huaxing Deep Blue Audi 4S store. According to the order provided by Mei Peng at that time, the model of the car purchased was Q5L 45TFSI exclusive fashion model, the transaction price was 383,000 yuan, the deposit was 1 ten thousand yuan, and the delivery date was 20 19 65438+ 10 month. Faw-Volkswagen commercial vehicle maintenance list? , and the vehicle maintenance information on the document is consistent with your own vehicle, indicating that the vehicle was repaired in the factory on 20 18 18122 October, and signed by the vehicle delivery person, assembly workshop and vehicle pickup person. Problem description? There are no problems in the column, only? Repair? In the second sentence, Mei Peng thought that he had bought a repaired car, and the salesperson of the 4S shop did not inform him of this situation when selling the car. Later, Mei Peng found a 4S shop, and the other party couldn't tell clearly. Later, the 4S shop responded that the maintenance content was? Replace the muffler? Mr. Mei thought the 4S shop was fraudulent, so he took it to court.
The court found that on June 3, 2065438+2009 65438+2065438, Mei Peng signed the Audi Car User Order with the 4S shop. 65438+ 10 month 16, both parties agreed to inspect the car. On June 65438+1October 65438+9, 2009, the 4S shop delivered the car to Mei Peng. Later, Mei Peng found a FAW-Volkswagen "Commodity Car Repair Sheet" in the car, which stated the repair location 1A 1, the warehouse was 36H, and Party B: the security department kept it, and the entry time was 20 18 10.22. This question is described as? Repair? .
On April 20 19, FAW-Volkswagen Automobile Co., Ltd. issued a statement on this matter, saying that after the inquiry of the relevant person in charge of the production department, it was learned that the content of vehicle repair was to replace the muffler, and the document was the vehicle operation document of the internal production factory of FAW-Volkswagen Automobile Co., Ltd., and the vehicle was off the production line on August 27, 20 18. When the vehicle was parked in the storage and transportation warehouse, it was found that the muffler assembled by the vehicle was defective. It needs to be returned to the assembly workshop for replacement. In-vehicle repair sheet is an internal working procedure sheet delivered from the storage and transportation warehouse to the assembly workshop on October 22nd, 20 18/KLOC-0. Due to the negligence of the staff, the bill was left in the car After passing the maintenance, it was sold to Jiangsu Huaxing Deep Blue Automobile Co., Ltd. on 201kloc-0/6543810.2.
According to the instructions, after the vehicle is found to have defects in the factory, it will be dealt with in time. The factory repair of the muffler of this car meets the relevant repair process standards of the enterprise. Maintenance of some minor problems of commercial vehicles that have not yet left the factory? It has no influence on the subsequent use and the quality of the car itself, and meets the factory standards after repair. On the same day, a staff member of the 4S shop involved said that according to his understanding, it was a group of vehicles that replaced the muffler at that time, not for the vehicles involved.
In addition, the "commercial vehicle delivery inspection confirmation form" issued by the 4S shop is used as evidence, which reads: initial mileage of 20KM? ,? After on-site inspection and debugging, the appearance and interior of the vehicle I bought are in good condition, without scratches or damage. All functions of the vehicle are normal and the vehicle is in good condition? In addition, the 4S shop provided the delivery maintenance form, which proved that there was no problem with the vehicle when it was delivered on 2019654381October 30th. In addition, the screenshot of the maintenance record query in the relevant system shows that the vehicle has not been repaired after leaving the factory and is a qualified vehicle.
The court held that according to the Audi car user order signed by both parties, the car delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff should be a new car, and now the car has actually been repaired. However, the above-mentioned repair fact occurred before the car involved was sold to the 4S shop, and there is no evidence to prove that the 4S shop owner objectively committed fraud. Mei Peng also has no evidence to prove that the 4S store is fraudulent. Therefore, Meipeng's claim that the 4S store should bear triple liability for compensation based on fraud lacks factual and legal basis, and the court does not support it.
Mei Peng refused to accept the appeal. On August 2, 2020, the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court upheld the original judgment and rejected the appeal.