He claimed it was unfit for racing and demanded his money back

Man demands return of 5 nooks after a year of buying it

The “Appeal” upheld the ruling of the “Al Ain Court” rejecting the case.

archival

Al-Ain Court of Appeal upheld a ruling of the Court of First Instance rejecting a lawsuit to terminate a contract for the sale of five camels brought by a man against a farm owner, after he discovered that they were not intended for racing.

In the details, a man filed a lawsuit against a camel dealer, in which he demanded a ruling to terminate the sale contract with the defendant and oblige him to return 125,000 dirhams, noting that the merchant claimed that he owned a distinct camel estate designated for racing, and sold him five camels for 125,000 dirhams as designated for racing. He also borrowed 5000 dirhams from him, after which he denied the amount and claimed that it was under the item of selling expenses, and after buying the camel it became clear that it is not equal to the amounts purchased with it, and that it is much less, according to the opinion of experts and specialists in this field, and it is not suitable For the race being tested and its age has exceeded the stage of preparation for the race, and it is useless.

While the expert committee specialized in general estimation issues delegated by the court, concluded that the sale was made and the buyer received about nine months ago, and accordingly it considers that he has no right to return to the sale, and the court of first instance ruled to reject the case.

This court did not obtain acceptance from the appellant, so he appealed to him on appeal, claiming the appealed judgment was wrong in applying the law and wasting defenses, indicating that he had bought the five camels at a price that did not fall under the estimation of the appraisers, which means that he was cheated and deceived in the value of what he bought, and the appellee seized the He has a camel on his estate, thinking that the passage of six months will deprive him of divorce.

The respondent filed a reply memorandum in which he stated that he totally and in detail denied the unfounded facts in the appeal statement.

The Court of Appeal stated in the merits of the ruling that the obituary is not valid, because fraud that spoils consent must be the result of fraudulent procedures or means that would deceive the contracting party so that his will is marred and does not make him able to judge matters in a sound judgment, and that mere lying is not enough to deceive unless proven It is clear that the deceiver was not able to clarify the truth despite this lie.

The court ruled to reject the appeal, uphold the appealed judgment, and obligate the appellant to pay fees and expenses.

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