18.08.2025 16:00
A person who found stains on a brand new car they purchased in Ankara filed a lawsuit after their request to exchange the vehicle for a new one was denied. The Court of Cassation deemed the car to have "hidden defects" and ruled for its replacement.
```html
According to the decision of the Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber, a person living in Ankara noticed that there were stain-like marks on the hood, front fenders, roof, and trunk of the vehicle purchased as a brand new from the dealer.
DEALER REJECTED THE CUSTOMER'S EXCHANGE REQUEST
The citizen who reported the situation to the company officials received the response that "the stains were caused by washing, and they would go away when a polishing process was applied." When the stains did not disappear after polishing, the person's request for another flawless and problem-free vehicle to be delivered to him was not met by the dealer.
THE CASE WAS TAKEN TO COURT
Upon this, the citizen filed a lawsuit at the Ankara 8th Consumer Court, requesting the vehicle to be exchanged for a flawless equivalent. The defendant company, which argued that the vehicle's paint was in accordance with standards and that the stains were removed and the vehicle was delivered to the plaintiff in a flawless manner, requested the dismissal of the case.
NOT DUE TO USER ERROR
The Ankara 8th Consumer Court, which found the plaintiff justified, ruled for the vehicle to be exchanged for a flawless equivalent. In the court decision, which stated that the problem with the vehicle was of a "hidden defect" nature, it was expressed that the expected benefit from a brand new vehicle could not be obtained.
Upon the appeal of the decision, the Ankara Regional Court of Appeals 3rd Civil Chamber ruled that the "exchange for an equivalent" decision given by the local court was appropriate. The Supreme Court 3rd Civil Chamber, which conducted the review, also approved the exchange decision as being in accordance with the law.
In the Supreme Court decision, which indicated that the defect in the vehicle did not arise from user error, the following was recorded:
"It is understood that the paint peeling on the vehicle's body is still ongoing and is of a hidden defect nature, and that the expected benefit from a brand new vehicle cannot be obtained, and that the plaintiff's exercise of the right to exchange for an equivalent is also in accordance with fairness and the balance of rights and interests between the parties, thus all appeal objections of the defendant's attorney must be rejected and the decision must be upheld."
```