Porsche buyer violates duty of truth, but judge punishes it

On the application of article 21 Rv is sometimes said: “If you fool the judge, you will go down on your face.” That this is actually true, the buyer of a Porsche Macan recently experienced. The Porsche had several defects and appeared to be an old damaged car. The man spoke to the dealer about this and presented himself in court as a defenseless and unknowing consumer. In reality, however, he was a car dealer himself. In addition, he owned a body repair shop. However, the man had concealed this and that cost him dearly (Gerechtshof ‘s-Hertogenbosch, March 4, 2025, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2025:591). Trial lawyer Robert van Ewijk explains what the consequences were.

Man buy Porsche with defects

In November 2020, the man buys a used Porsche Macan. The asking price is almost €70,000. The man offers his Volvo XC90 as a trade-in car. He also negotiated a discount because he did not need a warranty. The man indicated that he works as a plumber and will use the car for business purposes. The man paid the remainder of the purchase price in cash. After returning home, he had the car MOT tested. No defects were found. A few days later, however, the man complained to the seller of the Porsche. A laundry list of defects would have been discovered. Not only rattling and creaking of the undercarriage, but also improperly performed damage repairs. There would be non-conformity.

Argument between car salesman and consumer-buyer

Because the car seller does not reimburse the car's repair costs, the buyer subpoenaed. The latter claims in court that he is a consumer-buyer and that an unsound product has been delivered to him. The court agrees with him (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2023:7684). The Porsche buyer would be an unwitting consumer. Because he enjoys consumer protection, the burden of proof that the car was sound at the time of delivery lies with the seller. The seller failed to prove this and had to pay the buyer damages of €35,000.

Buyer conceals vital information

At appeal things run a little differently. The owner of the garage business argues that not only he but also the judge was fooled. In fact, the buyer of the Porsche has been running a business dealing in passenger cars for almost 10 years. In addition, his company operates as a body repair shop. The MOT inspection performed the day after the purchase was also done by this company. The buyer did not tell this at the court hearing. He said then that he had a real estate business, but was completely silent about his activities as a car dealer.

Breach of duty of truth in proceedings

According to the Court of Appeals, the man thereby violated his duty of truth. About this the law (article 21 Rv):

“The parties are obliged to state the facts relevant to the decision fully and truthfully. If this obligation is not complied with, the court may draw the inference it deems advisable.”

By failing to tell the court at the hearing that he operated a business in the trade, repair and inspection of automobiles, and instead pretending to operate exclusively a real estate business, the man breached his duty of truth. The Court of Appeals charged that heavily against the man and considered:

“Indeed, the information withheld by [the buyer] concerns his expertise in the field of used cars and is relevant to the question of whether [the buyer] should be qualified as a consumer and enjoys consumer protection. It has every appearance that [the buyer] withheld the information to optimize his chances in the proceedings.”

Consequences of violating duty of truth in lawsuit

The law states that if the duty of truth is violated, then the court can draw the inference it deems advisable. That means they can impose a sanction appropriate to the breach of the duty of truth. In this case, the sanction is that the Court of Appeals takes an extra critical look at all of the buyer's contentions. In addition, the man is no longer allowed to prove that he did buy the car as a consumer. In other words, because he lied, the man is given the benefit of the doubt. The Court of Appeals considers him a professional buyer.

Professional buyer enjoys less protection than consumer

The consequence is significant. After all, in a consumer purchase, the seller must prove that the product was sound at the time of delivery. If the buyer is not a consumer, he must prove that any defects were already present at the time of delivery. The Porsche buyer failed to do so. The MOT inspection performed the day after delivery did not reveal any defects.

Appellate trial lawyer

The Porsche buyer's claims are therefore still rejected. The amount of €35,000 received by him must therefore be returned to the seller. In addition, the man must pay the legal costs of the garage company for reimbursement. These amount to more than €12,500.