A signed warranty is a contractual statement to which a person is bound, a judge found after the seller of a car sold the vehicle as being a 2013 model to a car dealership, while it later emerged that the vehicle is, in fact, a 2005 model

The result was that the dealership paid the seller R60 000 more than what the vehicle was worth. When this was later discovered, the seller refused to pay the money back that  he was overpaid with.

The Magistrate’s Court in East London ruled against Eastern Cape Motors when it turned to court. The magistrate reasoned that the dealership should have established the model of the vehicle before entering into the sale agreement.

On appeal, the Eastern Cape High Court sitting in Makhanda said the magistrate was wrong and ordered that the seller, retired police officer Cornelius Wolmerans, must reimburse the R60 000 to the dealership.

The dispute centred around a written agreement in which Wolmerans traded his Mitsubishi Pajero, said to be a 2013 model, valued at R140 000, towards the purchase of a Toyota Aygo. The dealership later discovered it was a 2005 model only valued at R80 000.

Before this discovery was made, Wolmerans signed a written agreement in terms of which he bought the pre-owned Toyota at a price of R200 739.95 for a simultaneous trade-in of his Mitsubishi Pajero.

The valuation amount served as a deposit for the acquisition of the Toyota. The balance of the purchase price on the Toyota was financed.According to the evidence before the court, there is no physical difference in the bodywork and engine type between a 2013 and a 2005 year model that would otherwise have been immediately apparent to the representatives of the dealership.

Wolmerans admitted that he had signed the contract stating that his trade-in vehicle was a 2013 model, but he said he genuinely believed this to be so at the time of signing the contract. But the high court on appeal said a warranty is a contractual statement of fact by one party to another, affirming that the facts contained in the document are true.

It was not Wolmeran’s case that he should not be bound by the contents of the contract; thus, the contract stands, the court said.“Contractual relations are the bedrock of economic activity and our economic development is dependent, to a large extent, on the willingness of parties to enter into contractual relationships. If parties are confident that contracts that they enter into will be upheld, then they will be incentivised to contract with other parties for their mutual gain.

”“Without this confidence, the very motivation for social coordination is diminished. It is indeed crucial to economic development that individuals should be able to trust that all contracting parties will be bound by obligations willingly assumed,” the court said in upholding the appeal.

Source link