Can an automaker remove contract options without refunding the money?

The Consumer Protection Organization, responding to an investigative reporter's follow-up, said removing equipment listed in a contract without the buyer's written consent is a violation, and consumers may claim the difference in value of undelivered options. The organization said the contract is the basis of the automaker's obligation.

In response to the investigative reporter's follow-up, the support organization announced that removing the equipment included in the contract without the written consent of the buyer is a violation, and the consumer can demand the difference in the value of the undelivered options.

According to the latest car report, about the removal of options for domestic, assembled and imported cars, it shows that the inclusion of general terms in the contracts does not necessarily mean denying the right of the buyer to demand the agreed equipment or their financial value. In response to the questions of this media, the two legal and regulatory units of the consumer and producer protection organization have explained the legal dimensions of this issue. The story begins with a phrase that is included at the bottom of some car catalogs and contracts:

"According to the types and options of the cars, the selected features of the cars seen in the authorized dealers are always the criteria for delivering the car to the customers. "

This phrase raises the question of whether the car manufacturer, importer, or assembler can, based on it, deliver a car with equipment less than the declared specifications to the customer and not refund the amount for the removed equipment to the buyer?

The legal unit's response to this question emphasizes the obligations recorded in the contract and the need for the consumer's written consent to change them.

The Legal Unit of the Support Organization has announced in letter No. 8913864 dated 19 Mehr 1405 that according to Article 7 of the Law on the Protection of the Rights of Automobile Consumers, any direct or indirect agreement that leads to the deprivation of a part of the supplier's obligations or the consumer's legal rights is invalid before the consumer.

According to this answer, the inclusion of phrases such as the delivery of the car according to the sample seen in the dealership or conditions that limit the responsibility of the supplier, cannot alone prevent the buyer from claiming the rights of the technical specifications and equipment agreed upon at the time of registration. Article 6 of the Executive Regulations of the Law on the Protection of the Rights of Car Consumers obliges the supplier to include the exact specifications of the car, its type and type, and the equipment requested by the customer in the contract. Once these are recorded, the agreed specifications are part of the supplier's obligations.

The legal unit of the support organization has explained by referring to Article 8 of this regulation that changing the conditions of delivery or reducing the equipment must be done with the written consent of the consumer, before issuing the payment invitation and through an addendum signed by both parties. Therefore, unilateral removal of equipment without written consent and addendum agreed upon by the parties is a violation of regulations and breach of contractual obligation.

The issue is not limited to the non-delivery of equipment; The difference in the value of the purchased car with the delivered car is also important. A buyer may have paid for a car with a certain level of equipment, but receive a product with fewer features.

In its response, the legal unit of the support organization considered the delivery of a car with equipment less than the agreed items as an example of a defect or deficiency, the subject of clause "A" of Article 2 of the Executive Regulations. According to the reasoning of this unit, if the reduction of equipment lowers the economic value of the car, the supplier must compensate for the damage caused by this reduction, including the difference in the value of the removed equipment. This letter has also announced that receiving the price of a car with basic specifications and delivering a car with less equipment, without refunding the difference, if the legal conditions are met, can be subject to violations such as overselling under Article 2 of the Government Penalties Law and Article 57 of the Trade Union Law, as well as underselling or fraud under Article 3 of the Government Penalties Law and Article 58 of the Trade Union Law.

Of course, the identification of the title of violation and the final responsibility of the supplier depends on the documentation of each case and the fulfillment of legal conditions. The protection agency's response should not be interpreted as a final judgment against all companies or as a guarantee of outcome for all buyers' complaints.

The Legal Unit of the Support Organization has emphasized in its thesis that the point of view of the General Department of Inspection and Supervision of Capital Goods should also be included in the examination of the issue. This supervisory unit has also answered the questions of journalists in letter number 8941815 dated 21 Mehr 1405.

The General Department of Inspection and Supervision of Capital Goods has explained that the supplier during the warranty period is responsible for fixing defects that are caused by design, assembly, production or transportation, or that occur in normal use and contradict the warranty conditions or specifications, prevent the optimal use of the car, impair safety, or reduce the transaction value of the car. The cost of repairs during the warranty period and compensation for related damages is also the responsibility of the supplier.

This general office distinguishes between two situations: if the option chosen by the customer is installed according to the contract but is defective or inactive, the repair or replacement is the responsibility of the seller or supplier. However, if the equipment stated in the contract is basically not available at the time of delivery, the issue is one of non-fulfillment of the obligation.

In the same letter, it is emphasized that if the optional equipment is declared by the seller, corresponds to the catalog, is included in the contract, and its price is calculated in the final price of the car, then delivery of the car without that equipment is considered a failure to fulfill the obligation, and the consumer can follow up the matter through the judicial process.

One of the important documents of this case is the ruling No. 140331390001693306 of the General Board of the Administrative Court dated 17 Mehr 1403 and related to the case No. 0106209. This decision has invalidated Article 29 of the Executive Regulations of the Law on the Protection of the Rights of Car Consumers.

Article 29, before the cancellation, determined a multi-stage path for dealing with consumer and supplier disputes. Based on that, the matter should have been pursued through the supplier first; Then, the industry, mining and trade departments of the province and finally the dispute resolution board dealt with the dispute under Note 2 of Article 3 of the law.

The General Board of the Court of Administrative Justice, after examining the upstream regulations, announced that this article has limited the right of people to initially refer to the courts of justice and has created an arrangement contrary to Note 2 of Article 3 of the Law on the Protection of the Rights of Car Consumers. For this reason, Article 29 was found to be against the law and beyond the authority of the Council of Ministers and annulled it.

Note 2 of Article 3 of the aforementioned law provides for the dispute resolution board mechanism for disputes related to Article 3; However, the decision of the court prevents the referral to the supplier, the privacy offices and the dispute resolution board as mandatory steps before going to court for all these disputes.

The important point is that the judgment of the Court is directly about the annulment of Article 29 and the limitation of the way to refer to the judiciary; This decree alone has not issued the order to pay the difference of the deleted options. The basis for claiming this amount in the present case is the response of the legal unit of the protection organization and the regulations related to the supplier's obligations.

Buyers who believe that they have received a car with less equipment than the specifications included in the contract, must collect documents related to the seller's obligations and the condition of the delivered car before any action. The most important documents are:

purchase agreement and possible additions;

Catalog or official document of vehicle specifications and equipment at the time of purchase;

Minutes of the car delivery meeting and relevant documents about the available or removed options;

Correspondence with the seller's company and its possible responses;

If possible, expert documentation about the value of the undelivered equipment.

After collecting the documents, the buyer must specify his request according to the status of the case; For example, a claim for the difference in value of undelivered equipment or damages that can be claimed under the contract and regulations. It is not enough to simply claim to remove the option, and the documents must show that the disputed equipment was present in the contract or the official obligations of the supplier and was not provided during delivery.

For judicial follow-up, it is possible to file a petition through judicial electronic service offices. The competent authority for dealing with financial disputes is determined according to the amount demanded and the rules of jurisdiction; Therefore, without knowing the details of the case, it is not possible to introduce a specific court for all buyers. Also, simply delivering a car with fewer options, without checking the legal conditions, does not mean a definitive proof of a crime, and the legal claim should not be equated with a criminal complaint. The decision of the General Board of the Court of Administrative Justice also shows that the buyer should not consider himself bound to go through all the administrative procedures before going to the court just because of the process stipulated in the former Article 29. However, the selection of the request and the hearing authority should be based on the contract and documentation of each case.

The response of the two units of the support organization and the decision of the General Board of the Administrative Court of Justice distinguish three points from each other: the equipment included in the contract is considered the supplier's obligation; Unilateral reduction of equipment without the written consent of the buyer can be a breach of obligations; And the consumer does not have a legal obligation to go through all the procedures stipulated in Article 29 to pursue the dispute.

exclusive follow-up of the investigative reporter; The last car shows that the clause included in some contracts about the criteria of the car seen in the dealership alone cannot be used as a basis for ignoring the explicit obligations of the seller. Buyers who are faced with such a situation can follow their claim through the legal path by relying on the contract, delivery documents and the official responses of the support organization; However, the final result of each case depends on the documents and legal requirements.

The last car website was designed and coded by Tosi Group, and all rights to its format are reserved by him.