In the present case, a buyer purchased a used vehicle for more than 35,000 euros – as it later turned out, from a fraudster.
Shortly after the purchase, the police contacted him, seized the vehicle, and returned it to the original owner, a man from Frankenthal.
Who owns the vehicle?
The original owner then sold it for around 49,000 euros. However, the defrauded buyer claimed the purchase price for himself, arguing that despite the fraud, he had become the owner of the vehicle.
According to the District Court of Frankenthal, he
stated that he had come across the vehicle on the internet and had arranged to view it in Saarland. On his way there, he was redirected to another location in France.
He received a message that the seller's child was in a hospital in France following a fall. The purchase was conducted there in a parking lot through a cash payment.
The fraudster presented a vehicle registration document and a Belgian residence permit. According to the buyer's statement, he was therefore allowed to believe that the vehicle belonged to this person.
The judgment
However, the judges of the District Court of Frankenthal viewed it differently: Despite the presentation of the seemingly genuine vehicle registration document, the buyer acted with gross negligence and did not acquire the vehicle in good faith.
The circumstances of the sale should have raised doubts in the buyer's mind about having the real owner before him, the judges stated. This was because the seller presented a Belgian residence permit, even though his residence stated in the purchase contract was Frankenthal – and the vehicle was registered with a
German license plate.
Additionally striking was that the seller initially designated the meeting point as Dillingen/Saar, which differed from the stated place of residence. The cash transaction and the short-notice phone relocation of the sales location to a new – in this case, foreign – site are also typical for fraudulent automotive deals.
Therefore, the buyer cannot escape the accusation of gross negligence and must bear the loss himself, according to the judge. An appeal has been filed with the Higher Regional Court of the Palatinate Zweibrücken. (AZ 3 O 388/24)
