The Supreme Court ordered the courts to check fake seller discounts

The Supreme Court, having considered the case of a car buyer from Krasnodar, ruled that the courts should check whether the buyer is really being given a discount or is creating the appearance of one by inflating the original price. In addition, the Supreme Court considers it necessary to check whether unfavorable conditions are being imposed on consumers through the obligation to purchase a product only with a package of services. I studied the court decision RAPSI.

A car buyer from Krasnodar asked the courts to invalidate the agreement on the procedure for providing a “Package Discount” by a car dealer. In November 2021, a man bought a Mitsubishi Pajero Sport car worth 4.2 million rubles. taking into account a discount of 262.5 thousand rubles.

At the same time, the discount agreement stipulated that the buyer also purchases an additional package of financial services, which includes obtaining a loan, concluding an insurance contract, installing additional equipment and a set of winter tires. If you refuse to purchase any of the services, the discount on the car is canceled.

The man fulfilled all the conditions, but repaid the loan for the car after 12 days, and therefore filed an application to terminate the insurance contracts. But after this, the car dealer demanded to pay the debt of 262.5 thousand due to failure to fulfill the terms of the agreement.

The court of first instance refused to invalidate the agreement, explaining that the client was provided with all the necessary information about the services, the parties reached an agreement on all the essential terms of the contract, and in case of unwillingness to enter into the relevant agreements, the plaintiff was not deprived of the right to purchase a car without a discount.

The Supreme Court found that the buyer and seller were “in a manifestly unequal bargaining position.” However, from the decision of the Supreme Court it follows that the recovery from the buyer of the discount received for additional services of third parties, which he refused, must be made in proportion to the amount of funds that the buyer did not pay as interest or returned in the amount of the insurance premium.

It follows from the court decision that the price offered to the consumer may initially be inflated compared to the market price. Therefore, only the appearance of a profitable transaction for the consumer is created, and the seller and the financial organizations participating in the business model distribute the income among themselves. Thus, as the court found, the seller can abuse his right by creating the appearance of free choice.

These actions of the seller can also be considered as a way to impose unfavorable conditions on the buyer by conditioning the purchase of goods on the mandatory purchase of services from insurance or credit organizations.

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court decided to send the case of a man from Krasnodar for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Anastasia Larina