Gebrauchtwagen – welche Mängel fallen unter die Gewährleistung?
Moin zusammen,
ich habe mir im Oktober einen 1er BMW (Baujahr 2007, Faceliftmodell) für 5.000€ von einem gewerblichen Händler gekauft. Laut Kaufvertrag war neuer TÜV ausgemacht, den er auch erhalten hat.
Nun sind mir bzw. der Werkstatt einige Mängel aufgefallen.
Diese sind:
- Spritzwasserpumpe defekt
- Bremse vorne rechts schleift etwas, man hört es auch leicht Schleifen/Pfeifen (auf Nachfrage nach der Probefahrt hatte der Verkäufer behauptet, es sei das Radlager, was offensichtlich nicht stimmt)
- Flexrohr defekt
- Bremsschläuche vorne porös
- Handbremse muss nachgestellt werden
Dazu noch ein paar Kleinigkeiten wie Dichtringe die erneuert werden sollten, aber das ist bei dem Fahrzeugalter ja nichts besonderes.
Ein “Gespräch” mit dem Verkäufer (wenn man es so nennen will, war eher ein Monolog seinerseits) lief darauf hinaus, dass seiner Meinung nach nur Motor und Getriebe unter die Gewährleistung fallen, was natürlich absoluter Blödsinn ist.
Meiner Meinung nach fallen auf jeden Fall die Spritzwasserpumpe, das Flexrohr, die Bremsschläuche und ggf. das Problem mit der Bremse unter die Gewährleistung.
Was sind Eure Meinungen dazu? Habt ihr ähnliche Erfahrungen gemacht oder Tipps für mich, wie ich jetzt am besten vorgehe?
Danke schonmal!
(2 votes)
Loading...
-Sprite water pump you would have to check that it was already broken before (will get hard since TÜV)
All in all, you would have to go to a TÜV site and get you a new TÜV again — if it says” he will NOT come through the TÜV- you will get a mängelbericht.
Then you have chances that the seller has to do it – which is on the TÜV report.
For sales is only important what the TÜV has said–not what any workshop has told you
I don’t see that. A commercial seller shall be liable for all defects, regardless of the TÜV certificate. Vehicles with almost 2 years old TÜV are also sold, as the seller is also liable for all defects that the car suffered within the 2 years after the TÜV examination.
Since I am still in the first 6 months of warranty, the dealer must also prove that the spray water pump has worked at the time of purchase, not that it was defective at the time of purchase.
I had a witness at the trial and at the purchase, so it shouldn’t be a problem.
the spray water pump belongs to the TÜV -untersuchúng- when it passed the TÜV- the spray water pump was to the ZEitpumkt heal. That’s the salesman’s proof.
the same in the handbrake – which is part of the TÜV examination with it – the brake test has passed – was at the time the brake – ok and thus traffic-safe – the seller has his proof.
the same other parts.
Conclusion: the purchaser has all proved – that at the time it was all ok – where he had to afford a warm performance.
now you’d have to prove that the TÜV-seine has violated. no longer the seller- because he has his proof= TÜV report
The liability for defects does not ensure that you purchase a completely cumbersome car with Bj 2007. Age-related defects and wear are excluded.
I think you’re the one who’s out of the car before you buy. You noticed the brake grinding, so you knew about it.
I do not really see a relevant reason for complaint
As with the other post: please read again correctly.
The seller claimed it was the wheel bearing.
If he had said, “No idea what this is” that would be different, but he said it was the wheel bearing.
Such statements are legally binding.
If the dealer doesn’t have the expertise to judge such a thing or the car doesn’t look exactly at it is his problem and his risk. It belongs to the legal guarantee to remedy such defects, it is ultimately not a private seller.
However, my question also referred more to what kind of lack is under the guarantee at all.
Another question would have been how the car with a defective flex tube even got TÜV since the exhaust gas values should be noticeable?
And that’s hardly crowded overnight…
The hand brake must also be tested theoretically, and obviously it was not, because it must be extremely tight to achieve a braking effect. The first time on the slope, the car almost rolled away from me.
Accordingly, the spray water system was probably also ” overlooked”.
The points mentioned by you fall largely under “normal wear”.
It is at a 15; Years old car quite expectable.
That’s right.
Why do you buy a car where the brakes are grinding and the wheel bearing is defective?
Why are you going to the workshop and let everything be controlled?
Exhaust and brakes are all wear.
Maybe read thoroughly again.
The dealer’s statement was that the wheel bearing caused the noise, which is not true.
(Radlager would have been fast and cheap to repair, therefore no reason not to buy the vehicle)
That the brake caused the noise I experienced after buying in the workshop.
You should have verified the exact cause of the noise before buying. Not after
You obviously can’t distinguish a lack of wear and expect a 15-year-old car to have new condition. Can’t be. The legislator also looks different. Your long text and your paragraphs do not change this.
Just do it. I’m just asking one thing: if you’re already thinking of knowing everything and being consultative, because you don’t like the answers here, why haven’t you contacted a lawyer long ago (because without it will definitely be nothing) instead of wasting your time here?
wishes good success. I’m out of here 🤷🏻
I don’t think the tenor will change the legal position on a good question.
Oral statements are also legally binding.
For example, the car was advertised several times as “technically mängelfrei”.
What is in the TÜV report should be relatively irrelevant, as the dealer himself is liable for the condition. Of course, he can try to break the blame on the TÜV, but that’s his thing.
“Does the lackwithin the first six monthsafter the purchase,in your favorpresumes that the defect already existed when the vehicle was handed over (return of proof load (§ 477 BGB).
In this time, you do not have to consider the cause of the defect, nor that it falls within the responsibility of the seller (BGH, judgment of the 12. October 2016,Az. VIII ZR 103/15). Does the commercial seller see that differently,he has to prove the opposite. Within the first six or twelve months after handover, you are well protected.”
I think that’s quite clear.
Since the TÜV only makes a superficial visual examination and does not degrade underbody protection or checks any non-safety-relevant parts, the evidence should go against 0.
That also gave me my research.
You like that. But the tenor of answers has a clear realistic tendency. Let yourself be advised by a lawyer and you will notice that he will not tell you anything else 🤷🏻
It was verified by the trader’s statement, which is legally binding in this case. There are also witnesses.