He took advantage of his trust in him and claimed that he was its actual owner

A young man sells his friend's car and seizes 340,000 dirhams

The court was not satisfied with the statements of the defense witnesses.

From the source

A young man trusted his friend and handed him his car to use until he sold it to him. The latter sold the car to a car showroom, and seized its price, claiming that he was the actual owner of it.

The Abu Dhabi Court for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of 340,000 dirhams.

In the details, a young man filed a lawsuit against a friend of his, in which he requested that he be obligated to pay him an amount of 340,000 dirhams with interest at 12%, and oblige him to pay him an amount of 30,000 dirhams as compensation, with the judgment included in the expedited enforcement, indicating that he handed over his vehicle to the plaintiff. Because of their friendship, after the latter deluded him that he would sell it to a car showroom and transfer its price to him, and when he sold it and gave it up, the plaintiff did not hand him the amount, kept it for himself, and provided a support for his claim (photos of conversations between them via WhatsApp).

The court decided to direct the complementary oath to the plaintiff, so he took an oath confirming that the car in question was fully owned by him, and that the amount he had previously paid to buy the car belonged to him and from his own money, and that its presence with the defendant was for his use only, and then sold for his account and for his benefit, indicating that The defendant has no right in it or in its price, and that he has not paid any amount of its value and that he is the actual owner of it.

In the rationale for its ruling, the court clarified that, according to the Civil Transactions Law, “no one is justified to take another person’s money without a legitimate reason, and if he takes it, he must return it.”

It is also decided by the same law that “whoever received something without right must return it to its owner,” noting that she saw in the correspondence that took place via (WhatsApp) between the plaintiff and the defendant and receipts for withdrawing the sums provided by the plaintiff and the contemporary at the time of buying the car, as well as The registration of the car, starting with his name, is a presumption of the validity of what the plaintiff claims is that he is the actual owner of the car, not the defendant, and that its presence with the defendant was due to the strong relationship between them only.

And she continued that she was not satisfied with the statements of the witnesses to the denial, and thus proves the validity of what the plaintiff claims that he is the actual owner of the car, and that the defendant did not hand him the value of the car that he asked the plaintiff to relinquish when the code was sent to him from the competent authority to transfer the ownership of the car.

The court rejected the plaintiff's request for compensation, and attributed its refusal to the fact that the request was ignorant and the plaintiff did not indicate the damages for which he is claiming compensation.

It also rejected the interest request because it was not based on a valid legal basis, and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of 340,000 dirhams.

Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news