You bought a used car and found defects. Want to claim compensation from the seller? Wondering if it's useful to do an expertise? A judgment of the Court of Cassation states that amicable expertise is not enough.
A business buys a used car from a professional. A mechanical incident occurs, followed by a second. The business who acquired the car is taking the case to court for compensation for hidden defects. The Court of Appeal accepts the application. The purchaser has had an amicable expert report drawn up. This document concludes that there were problems resulting from a hidden defect existing at the time of the sale. This expert report is supplemented by a bailiff’s report.
This is not enough, says the Court of Cassation. If the expert’s report is not judicial, it must be corroborated by at least a second piece of evidence. In the present case, the bailiff’s report does not confirm the expert’s conclusions; it merely states that there have been disturbances. The principle of the adversarial debate (where each party is able to present its point of view and discuss the evidence, facts, arguments related to the case concerned) was not respected as the parties did not exchange their arguments on the documents produced.
The Court of Cassation recalls that the judge cannot base his decision solely on an amicable expert report drawn up before a trial and produced at the request of only one of the parties.
