Plaintiff claims to have acted as a consumer. The car could be used privately as well as for business purposes, while plaintiff operates a car trading company.
It is relevant if, from the telephone conversation on 18 January 2013 and other circumstances, it was clear that the plaintiff wanted to buy this car for private use. Plaintiff is permitted by the court to provide evidence to prove that he acted as a consumer.
If he fails to do so, he needs to prove that the delivered item (the car) is in non-conformity with the agreement, i.e. that it did not have the actual characteristics required for normal use. The court states that the plaintiff had the right to expect that the car would work for a longer period than one day. In other words, at the time of purchase plaintiff did not need to bear in mind nor presume or anticipate that the car would only work for a very short period of time. In preliminary relief proceedings, the court finds that the car was indeed not in conformity with the agreement. The court rules that the defendant needs to provide evidence to the contrary.
Integrale tekst: Integrale tekst