The First Hall of the Civil Court, presided over by Mr Justice Mark Chetcuti on December 12, 2013, in the case “Dr Louis Buhagiar v UCIM Co. Ltd as agent in Malta of Fiat SpA” held, among other things, that it was not acceptable for defendants to insist on first finding the root cause of the fault in the engine. Even if the engine was ‘opened’, there was no guarantee that the problem would be solved if some parts were changed.
The facts in this case were as follows.
Dr Louis Buhagiar purchased an Alfa Brera registration number BET-510, from UCIM Co. Ltd as agents of the foreign company Fiat SpA, in November 2006.
Dr Buhagiar complained that the car was defective and not up to the agreed quality according to law. Soon after it was purchased, faults appeared with the car, even though it was serviced regularly. The car engine burnt excessive engine oil, and considerable damage was caused to its engine and to Dr Buhagiar as the owner of the car.
The engine was replaced at Dr Buhagiar’s expense but the same problem reappeared. Faced with this situation, Dr Buhagiar proceeded to filing legal proceedings to rescind the sale of the car.
It was stated that the elements of article 1390 of the Civil Code, all existed, as the car was not delivered by UCIM up to the agreed quality.
Dr Buhagiar requested the court to:
• declare that the car was not according to the agreed quality;
• order the rescission of the sale of the car and to condemn the defendants or any of them to provide him a new car of the same brand and type and this according to the quality originally agreed;
• declare the defendants or any one of them to be responsible for the damages suffered, and finally to liquidate the damages.
The defendants in reply, disputed responsibility whatsoever.
They pleaded that the Italian company Fiat SpA was not the legitimate defendant; that Dr Buhagiar’s legal action was time barred by the lapse of two years; that Dr Buhagiar was to blame for the faults in the car owing to poor driving and irregular service maintenance.
In addition they added that they were unable to find the root cause to the trouble which developed to the second engine, as Dr Buhagiar refused to allow them to inspect the engine carefully.
In this respect, they claimed that his legal action was unfounded and should be dismissed.
The court considered that Dr Buhagiar claimed that the Alfa Brera purchased from UCIM was faulty.
It resulted that Dr Buhagiar bought the Alfa Brera for his son, in November 2006. When the car was taken for a maintenance service in December 2008, the steering wheel had to be changed, at the cost of UCIM. Soon after the car was repaired on February 16, 2009, a fault with the engine oil gauge appeared. On April 28, 2009, the situation with the car became worse. The engine started to make a lot of noise and a warning light indicated that the car should not be used.
The car was taken to UCIM. The engine dismantled and UCIM recommended a new engine for the car.
As UCIM did not accept responsibility, Dr Buhagiar paid for the cost of the new engine. On May 10, 2010, the car was repaired and delivered to its owner.
It was clear, pointed out the court, that Dr Buhagiar’s Alfa Brera could not be used for its intended purpose, just like any other car
It so happened that a month later, the same problem with the car reappeared. The car had difficulty starting and a warning display flashed ‘check engine’.
The engine oil gauge started to play tricks giving incorrect readings of the level of engine oil. The engine consumed excessive amounts of engine oil over a short distance and as Dr Buhagiar was reluctant to keep monitoring the level of engine oil every few kilometers, legal action was taken.
The defendants, on the other side, disclaimed responsibility for the faults in the Alfa Brera and attributed the blame on Dr Buhagiar’s poor driving and lack of regular maintenance.
Prescription: the defendants pleaded two-year prescription in terms of article 1407 of the Civil Code.
The court rejected this plea. It said that prescription started to run not from the date of purchase in November 2006 but from May 2010, after the new engine was installed. That was when legal proceedings could be taken. In this case, two years had not lapsed from the purchase and installation of the second engine.
The court felt that the engine was not just a replaceable accessory. It was deemed to be the principal part of the car, in the sense if the engine was faulty, the car could not be used for its intended purpose.
The court noted that an Alfa Brera was meant to be a car having superior specifications, with a reputable name and a high price tag and it was expected that it would be a good car.
Even if the court were to ignore the problems with the first engine, there was no doubt that after the second engine was installed, Dr Buhagiar was not informed what caused the excessive burning of engine oil by the second engine. After the second engine was fitted, the defendants could not complain of abusive driving nor that the cylinders had been scratched.
In the space of one month, the car started to consume excessive engine oil, which was not well-indicated on the oil gauge. This rendered the car unsuitable for the use intended, maintained the court. UCIM was also aware that the second engine burnt excessive engine oil, but wished to open up the engine to discover the cause.
The court said that it was not explained what caused the first engine to lose oil, and nor why the second new engine developed similar problems after just one week.
This defect affected the most essential part of the car pointed out the court.
Article 1390 of the Civil Code provides:
“ If the thing which the seller offers to deliver is not of the quality promised, or is not according to the sample on which the sale was made, the buyer may elect either to reject the thing and demand damages, or to accept the thing with a diminution of the price upon a valuation by experts.”
If an object was not of the agreed quality, a buyer could refuse the object and request damages. It was evident that the second engine installed in the car was not of the agreed quality as the car could not be used in a normal way.
Dr Buhagiar could not be expected to keep checking the oil levels every few kilometres.
As the fault appeared just few weeks after installation without any reason Dr Buhagiar was entitled to file this legal action. It was not acceptable for the defendants to insist on inspecting the engine.
Besides, even if the engine was ‘opened’, there was no guarantee that the problem would be solved if some parts were changed.
The defendants were not justified to evade their obligation on the pretext that it did not find the root cause of the problem in particular in view of the value and prestige of the car and the cost of the new engine.
It was clear, pointed out the court, that Dr Buhagiar’s Alfa Brera could not be used for its intended purpose, just like any other car, even with a lower price tag.
The court accepted Dr Buhagiar’s request that the defendants should return the purchase price in terms of article 1404 of chapter 16.
Although he also claimed damages under article 1390 since there was no proof as to what damages were suffered, the court rejected this claim.
The court, in addition, could not accept Dr Buhagiar’s claim for damages for changing the first engine once he had agreed to pay for the cost of the new engine without any reservation.
For these reasons, on December 12, 2013, the court gave judgment by dismissing Fiat SpA’s plea that it was not the legitimate defendant and the plea of prescription under article 1407 of the Civil Code.
The court accepted Dr Buhagiar’s claims that both the defendants, UCIM Co. Ltd and Fiat SpA jointly had to return the purchase price of the Alfa Brera BET-510, in terms of article 1390 of the Civil Code.
Since no invoice was produced, the price of the car had to be refunded to Dr Buhagiar per the sale invoice.
Dr Buhagiar, on the other hand, had to return the car to UCIM as well as transfer the car back to the manufacturer at the defendants’ expense.
Dr Karl Grech Orr is a partner at Ganado Advocates.