How we protected the car manufacturer from illegal demands worth nearly 20 million rubles

On July 25, 2024, the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Volgograd refused to settle claims of Milish T.A. against AGR OOO for the cost of the car, the difference in the price of the goods, penalties, and a fine totaling nearly 20 million rubles. The lawyers of the Tsentralny Okrug Law Firm represented the organization's interests. 

If the purchase and sale agreement is not fulfilled, the cost of the goods may be collected. This refusal is possible in a limited number of cases:

• Detection of a significant defect in the product;
• Violation of established deadlines for defect elimination;
• the inability to use the product for more than 30 days in each year of the warranty period due to the repeated elimination of various defects. 

In the case of the consumer, the nature of the declared faults stands out: paintwork defects are unusual and can't cause problems while driving. Meanwhile, the plaintiff chose an unusual defense strategy. The demands for defect elimination were issued simultaneously to three legal entities: the manufacturer and two dealers. At the same time, before receiving payment for the car, the consumer is required to return it. Obviously, the return can only be made to one entity. 

The manufacturer's quality checks revealed that the existing defects in the paintwork were operational in nature, as evidenced by the characteristic impact traces on the varnish. However, the consumer disagreed with the quality check and went to court. 

The court ordered a forensic examination, and during the inspection, it was determined that the defects mentioned by the plaintiff were operational. However, during the inspection, at the plaintiff's request, another one defect was discovered that had not previously been declared and had not manifested itself: a crater in the paintwork. However, despite its loud technical name, crater, this type of defect was essentially a point on the varnish with a diameter of less than 1 mm. It was discovered only with the assistance of specially installed lighting. The forensic expert determined that this defect was a manufacturing defect, allowing the plaintiff to point to the violation of the deadlines for eliminating the defects (the plaintiff did not pick up the car from the dealer and ignored requests to do so). 

At the same time, the expert's conclusion established that the crater is not a manufacturing defect. In cases of disputes over car quality, it is important to rely on several documents. The first one is TR CU 018/2011 “On the safety of wheeled vehicles”, that is the main document in the territory of the EAEU regarding car quality. The second one is the manufacturer's documentation, and the third is the contract terms. 

That is why we initiated an interrogation with a forensic expert to determine which mandatory requirements are violated by a dot with a diameter of less than 1 mm, as such justifications were absent from the examination. 

During the interrogation, the forensic expert stated that while the crater is not a technical defect and has no effect on the paint coating's protective properties. However, it does violate GOST 9.032-74 “Unified system of protection against corrosion and aging. Paint and varnish coatings. Groups, technical specifications, and designations.” 

In order for the consumer to be able to refuse to fulfill the contract, the car must have a defect, which is a malfunction or non-compliance with mandatory requirements. 

As a result, the evidence of the crater's non-compliance with GOST it was raised a critical legal question: is GOST (that was published in 1974) a mandatory document? 

To accomplish this, we needed to establish a chain of evidence demonstrating which mandatory documents currently regulate car quality and why requirements of GOST are not required in this area. 

We supported the position that GOST is not mandatory for use, and it can be only mandatory when the manufacturer voluntarily declares its use, which was not done in our case (which is understandable given that GOST that was published in 1974 was designed for domestic cars from those years rather than modern, foreign brands). 

TR CU 018/2011 “On the safety of wheeled vehicles” went into effect on January 1, 2015, and it contains no single requirement for the paintwork of passenger cars, so such mandatory requirements do not exist. 

That is why we demonstrated that the legislation does not include any requirements defining single dots on the varnish as defects. 

The court considered our arguments before making its decision and refused to fully satisfy the claims.