The engine in a used car broke down — who pays?

Short answer: the seller may be liable, but an engine that breaks down within a month does not automatically mean the seller has to pay

What matters is whether the cause of the engine failure already existed when the car was handed over and whether it was a lack of conformity with the contract, rather than normal wear and tear for that car or misuse after the purchase. A fault may only become apparent later. This principle is discussed, for example, in the Supreme Court judgment of 15.11.2017 in 2-15-18987/26, points 11–13.

In your situation, the seller’s status is the most important factor:

Legal basis: VÕS § 1 subsections 5–6, § 208 subsection 4 and § 218 subsections 1, 2 and 2². The TTJA also explains the special first-year rule on the burden of proof.

Most important right now: do not order a new engine straight away without contacting the seller, and do not let the old engine be thrown away. Report the fault in writing, keep the evidence, and allow the seller to inspect the car and remedy the defect. Mistakes made at exactly this stage have caused buyers to lose even where the engine broke down very quickly.

The following analysis is based on Estonian law. For each court case, I state separately whether the seller was a company or a private individual.

1. When is the seller liable for an engine failure?

1.1. When a fault appears and when it arose are different things

The seller is generally liable for a defect that existed when the car was handed over, even if it only becomes apparent later. For example, an engine may run for a month even though, at handover, it already had a bearing damaged by a long-term lubrication problem or a fault caused by an earlier substandard repair.

By contrast, the seller is generally not liable if, after the purchase, the buyer fails to carry out necessary maintenance, drives without oil or keeps driving after a warning that the engine is being damaged, and thereby causes the failure. Legal basis: VÕS § 218 subsection 1, § 101 subsection 3 and § 139 subsections 1–2.

That is why a workshop’s assessment that “the engine needs replacing” is often not enough. It also needs to explain:

• which part or system has failed;
• why the damage occurred;
• whether the damage developed over a long period or could have arisen after the purchase;
• whether it is normal wear and tear for a car of that age and use;
• why replacing the whole engine is necessary rather than a cheaper repair.

These are separate questions: proving the seller’s liability does not automatically prove that the entire repair bill is justified. This is shown particularly well by 2-22-14574/41, discussed below.

1.2. A used car does not have to be new, but the advertisement counts

In a sale between private individuals, the car must have the agreed characteristics. If there is no specific agreement, it must be fit for ordinary use and, taking the circumstances into account, be of at least average quality. Basis: VÕS § 77 subsection 1 and § 217 subsection 1 and subsection 2 clauses 1–2.

In a consumer sale, in addition to the agreement, the car must also meet reasonable expectations regarding its ordinary use, quality, durability and safety. Information given in advertising is also taken into account, among other things. Basis: VÕS § 217¹ subsection 2 clause 1, subsection 3 clauses 1–2 and subsection 5.

For example, an assurance that the car is “in very good technical condition”, “serviced” or “needs no repairs” may mean a higher agreed quality than merely the average condition of a car of the same age. However, you must be able to prove what the seller actually promised. A screenshot of the advertisement and the message exchange are therefore important.

1.3. Your evidential position is stronger when buying from a business

If you bought the car as a consumer from a business:

• the seller is liable for a lack of conformity that becomes apparent within two years;
• if a lack of conformity becomes apparent in the first year, it is presumed to have existed at handover, unless this is incompatible with the nature of the goods or of the defect;
• you must still show that an actual lack of conformity exists and when it became apparent.

You generally do not have to prove the whole mechanism of the failure and its pre-sale history yourself. The seller’s mere speculation that “the buyer may have ruined the engine” is not the same as proving it. Basis: VÕS § 218 subsections 2 and 2²; see also 2-16-15413/60, points 10–12.

However, this is not a two-year guarantee against all future faults. Normal wear and tear and damage caused by the buyer must be distinguished from a lack of conformity with the contract.

When reading older decisions, keep the change in the law in mind: under the consumer sale rules in force before 01.01.2022, this presumption lasted six months. It now lasts one year.

1.4. A private seller’s lack of knowledge does not automatically release them

A private individual may also be liable for a hidden defect that existed at handover, even if they did not know about it themselves. The seller’s knowledge is generally not a precondition for liability.

Knowledge becomes particularly important if the buyer reported the defect late or the contract contains a limitation of liability. The seller cannot rely on an exclusion of liability if they knew or should have known about the lack of conformity and did not disclose it to the buyer. Basis: VÕS § 218 subsection 1 and § 221 subsections 1–2.

In a contract between private individuals, agreements limiting liability can therefore affect the outcome. But “the buyer has inspected the car” does not in itself mean that the buyer accepted every hidden defect inside the engine.

1.5. “Private individual” in the contract does not always mean a sale between private individuals

A business can also be a natural person who sells cars in the course of their economic or professional activity. What matters is not only whether there is a company, but the transaction’s actual connection with business activity. Basis: VÕS § 1 subsection 6 and § 208 subsection 4.

On the other hand, the involvement of a car dealership as an intermediary does not automatically turn a genuine private seller into a business. This situation is discussed below in 2-18-4406/65.

2. What can you claim from the seller?

Repair at the seller’s expense

If the seller is liable for the defect, you can demand repair or, under the relevant conditions, replacement. The seller bears the justified costs of repair and replacement, including labour, materials and transport. You must make the car available to the seller. Basis: VÕS § 222 subsections 1, 3–4 and 4².

This does not necessarily mean a right to demand a new car in place of a used one, or the most expensive new engine in place of a used one. The feasibility of the chosen solution and the proportionality of the costs matter.

Reimbursement of a repair carried out elsewhere

If you rightfully demand repair and the seller does not carry it out within a reasonable time, you may have the car repaired elsewhere and claim reimbursement of reasonable costs. Basis: VÕS § 222 subsection 5.

Repair costs may also be recoverable as damages. But generally, the seller must have been given an opportunity to perform the obligation. Exceptions arise, for example, where the seller clearly refuses or an additional deadline would obviously be futile. Basis: VÕS § 115 subsections 1–3.

Returning the car and getting the purchase price back

Withdrawal is possible, among other things, if the seller does not remedy the defect, refuses to do so, the repair fails, or the defect is so serious that it justifies immediate withdrawal. In a consumer sale, the defect is presumed to be material, but the other conditions for withdrawal must also be met. Basis: VÕS § 223 subsection 1 clauses 1–5 and subsections 3 and 5.

Not every engine failure automatically gives you the right to demand the purchase price back immediately. Courts have assessed differently whether, for a particular fault, repair should first have been allowed.

When withdrawing from a consumer sale, the car is returned at the seller’s expense, and the claim for a refund of the purchase price becomes due once the car has been returned or its return shipment has been proven. Basis: VÕS § 223 subsection 7.

Price reduction and incidental costs

Under the relevant conditions, you can keep the car and reduce the price. The price reduction is not automatically equal to the repair bill: it is based on the ratio between the value of the goods with the defect and without it. Basis: VÕS § 112 subsections 1–3 and § 224 subsection 1.

Costs of diagnostics, towing, an expert assessment and pre-trial legal assistance may also be justified. However, the necessity, amount and connection with the breach of each cost must be proven separately. Basis: VÕS § 127 subsections 1–4 and § 128 subsection 3.

3. Case law: 16 court cases

Below I distinguish 16 separate court cases, rather than counting the appeal and cassation stages of the same dispute as separate cases. Where a court sent a case back for a new hearing, I say so clearly: such a decision does not yet award the buyer any money.

A. The seller was a company

1. The engine broke down after about a month and a half: the consumer was wrongly required to prove too much

Seller: a company. Buyer: a consumer.

Tartu Circuit Court judgment of 14.02.2018 in 2-16-15413/60, particularly points 9–13.

The car was bought on 08.04.2016 and was unroadworthy from 26.05.2016. There was a hole in the engine sump and the oil had leaked out. The seller argued that the buyer had not proven the cause of the fault and that the hole may have been caused by external damage.

The County Court dismissed the buyer’s claim. The Circuit Court, however, found that the court had allocated the burden of proof in a consumer sale incorrectly. The buyer had proven the defect and that it became apparent within the six-month period then in force. The seller had to prove that the defect arose from the buyer’s actions; mere speculation about external damage was not sufficient.

Outcome: the County Court judgment was set aside and the case was sent back for a new hearing. This decision did not order a refund of the 7500-euro purchase price claimed by the buyer; the dispute also concerned a different price entered in the contract.

For you: when buying from a business, you do not have to lose merely because the exact root cause of the engine failure is not yet known. Under current law, the corresponding presumption lasts one year.

2. A cracked engine block and faulty injectors: the seller’s “repair with an excess” was not enough

Seller: a company. Buyer: a consumer.

Tallinn Circuit Court judgment of 17.02.2021 in 2-20-1903/24, particularly points 11–14.

After the purchase, a five-year-old car began losing coolant and showed pressure in the cooling system. The workshop found a crack in a cylinder liner and later also faults in the injectors. Before the problems were investigated, the buyer had driven about 1600 km.

The seller relied on contract terms under which the buyer assumed all risks of breakdown. The court found that, in a consumer sale, terms excluding the seller’s statutory liability were void.

The seller offered to replace the engine block only on condition that the buyer paid an excess of 750 euros. The Circuit Court treated this as a refusal to remedy the defect at the seller’s own expense; the buyer did not have to give a further deadline.

Outcome: the award of 3597.32 euros and default interest for the engine- and injector-related costs was upheld. Payment was tied to the return of the replaced engine and injectors. The 386.32-euro claim for clutch and release bearing costs was dismissed.

For you: “we’ll repair it if you pay part of it yourself” may not be a lawful solution for a defect the seller is liable for.

3. The engine broke down within five days: purchase price refunded, but not all costs

Seller: a company. Buyer: a consumer.

Tallinn Circuit Court judgment of 15.12.2017 in 2-17-3888/19, particularly points 35–47.

In a car bought for 3200 euros, diesel fuel got into the engine’s lubrication system. The problem appeared immediately and the engine broke down within five days at the latest. The seller argued that the buyer had accepted the possible defects of a used car and that the seller’s liability was excluded in the contract.

The court found that a general warning about the wear of a used car did not amount to an agreement to buy an unroadworthy car. In a consumer sale, agreements excluding liability were void.

Outcome: the award of the 3200-euro purchase price, 355 euros in damages, 36.62 euros in default interest already accrued and continuing default interest was upheld. The County Court also awarded 1010 euros in procedural costs.

The buyer’s further 355-euro damages claim was not granted: 350 euros of it concerned an initial repair that did not resolve the main problem.

For you: the seller may be liable, but that does not automatically make all work the buyer ordered recoverable.

4. The engine would not start after 13 days: long-term lack of maintenance was a hidden defect

Seller: a company. Buyer: a consumer; the purchase was financed through an intermediary.

Tartu County Court judgment of 11.03.2019 in 2-17-3306/27, particularly points 8–13 and 16.

The car cost 3075 euros. Thirteen days after the purchase, it would no longer start. The buyer contacted the seller, but the seller did not remedy the defect. It later turned out that the oil and oil filter had not been changed for a long time, the oil had solidified and the engine parts that need lubrication were damaged.

The court did not consider this normal wear and tear, even though the car was about 13 years old. The engine defect could not have been discovered by an ordinary external inspection.

Outcome: according to the operative part of the judgment, 4097.58 euros was awarded, of which 3075 euros was the purchase price, 885.97 euros damages and 136.61 euros default interest, together with continuing default interest and 890 euros in procedural costs. The buyer had to return the car. The seller’s own claim for a declaration that it had no payment obligation was dismissed.

For you: a car’s high age does not release the seller from liability for hidden engine damage caused by long-term poor maintenance.

5. The engine started knocking after 11 days: the seller did not remedy the defect within a reasonable time

Seller: a company. Buyer: a consumer.

Tartu Circuit Court judgment of 27.02.2012 in 2-11-3209/35, particularly points 7–10 and 13–15.

Eleven days after the purchase, the engine of an approximately 14-year-old car began knocking. This was caused by connecting-rod and main bearings damaged by insufficient lubrication. The other defects named by the buyer, by contrast, were considered normal for an old car.

The buyer notified the seller. The parties argued about transporting the car for inspection, but the seller did not remedy the defect within a reasonable time. The Circuit Court disagreed with the County Court that the buyer’s withdrawal necessarily had to fail because no separate additional deadline had been set.

Outcome: the seller was ordered to pay the 1661.70-euro purchase price, 839.63 euros in compensation for costs and 150.69 euros in default interest, plus continuing default interest. The car and the money had to be returned to each other. The procedural costs were borne by the seller.

For you: the buyer must allow the problem to be resolved, but the seller must also actually act. Lengthy correspondence is no substitute for a repair.

6. The engine was destroyed in a car wash four months after the purchase: the root cause was already in the car

Seller: a company. The car was acquired for a consumer through leasing.

Supreme Court judgment of 07.04.2010 in 3-2-1-23-10, particularly points 12–14; later Tartu Circuit Court judgment of 20.06.2011 in 2-08-2720/42, particularly points 9–12.

After a car wash, water got into the engine and the engine became unusable. The water drainage was blocked by needles from trees that do not grow wild in Estonia. This supported the conclusion that the root cause of the problem already existed when the car, imported from abroad, was handed over.

The Supreme Court emphasised that normal wear and tear is not a breach of contract, but a defect that is unusual for comparable used cars may be. The case was sent back to the Circuit Court for further assessment of the causal link.

Outcome: the later Circuit Court judgment upheld the award of 81,537 kroons, converted to 5211.16 euros. A later order on procedural costs awarded the buyer 1788.88 euros: 2-08-2720/52, 27.02.2012.

For you: the fact that the car ran for several months before the failure does not rule out a hidden pre-sale defect.

7. The engine broke down almost exactly a month later: the buyer lost because of insufficient evidence

Seller: a company. Buyer: a consumer.

Tartu County Court judgment of 03.10.2014 in 2-12-40404/19, particularly points 7–12 and 15 of the reasoning.

The car was bought on 09.03.2012 and the engine failure appeared on 08.04.2012. The buyer argued that the engine had previously been repaired carelessly. The expert assessment, however, stated that the exact cause and extent of the damage required further investigation.

The buyer had the engine replaced and later sold the car on. In the court’s view, it was no longer possible to establish the cause and time of the fault sufficiently. The buyer had also not responded to the seller’s proposal to bring the car in for inspection.

Outcome: the 2750.49-euro damages claim was dismissed in full and the procedural costs were borne by the buyer, even though the consumer complaints committee had previously sided with the buyer.

For you: preserving evidence and giving the seller an opportunity to inspect are important. However, this older first-instance decision does not mean that a consumer today would always have to prove the pre-sale origin of the fault themselves in the first year; it must be read together with the special rule on the burden of proof explained above.

B. The seller was a private individual

8. The engine stopped working within two weeks: a private individual had to return 15,500 euros

Seller: a private individual. Buyer: a private individual.

Tallinn Circuit Court judgment of 22.06.2022 in 2-20-13495/48, particularly points 48–59.

The advertisement described the car as being in very good technical condition and serviced on time. An engine failure soon appeared. Traces of an earlier unprofessional repair and parts unsuitable for the car were found.

The seller relied on the car having passed roadworthiness tests, the buyer having declined a more thorough pre-purchase inspection, and the seller not having known about the defects. These objections did not remove liability for the proven hidden defects.

Outcome: the award of the 15,500-euro purchase price, 1293.80 euros in damages, 193.11 euros in default interest and continuing default interest was upheld. The buyer had to return the car.

The Circuit Court clarified that the buyer did not have to repair the car to a roadworthy condition before returning it: the car had to be returned to the seller in the condition it was in after the defect appeared.

For you: a private individual may also be liable for refunding the entire purchase price. A valid roadworthiness test and the seller’s lack of knowledge are not independent grounds for release.

9. The engine seized in under three months: long-term damage proved a pre-sale cause

Seller: a private individual. Buyer: a private individual.

Supreme Court judgment of 10.10.2018 in 2-14-37663/54, particularly points 12–17; Tallinn Circuit Court judgment of 14.12.2018 in 2-14-37663/59, particularly points 13–20.

After the purchase, the buyer drove the car for a few thousand kilometres. According to the expert examination, the engine damage had developed over at least 30,000–40,000 km, for example because of the use of the wrong oil, poor maintenance or running without lubrication. This made it possible to conclude that the cause existed before the car was handed over to the buyer.

At first, the claim was dismissed because the buyer had not notified the seller quickly enough. The Supreme Court found that the time of learning about the specific hidden defect had to be counted from receipt of the expert’s assessment.

Outcome: later, 3913.97 euros in damages, 1264.41 euros in default interest and continuing default interest were awarded. A later costs order awarded a further 5278.87 euros in procedural costs: 2-14-37663/80, 05.07.2021.

For you: when buying from a private individual, an assessment linking the time over which the damage developed to the period before the purchase is especially valuable. However, you should not conclude from this decision that you can always wait until the expert examination is complete before notifying the seller.

10. Excessive oil consumption: “a typical fault of this engine” did not release the seller

Seller: a private individual. Buyer: a private individual.

Tallinn Circuit Court judgment of 15.12.2025 in 2-24-662/37, particularly points 22–23; County Court judgment of 20.12.2024 in 2-24-662/26.

The car cost 6500 euros. After the purchase, oil repeatedly had to be topped up. According to the experts, the car’s oil consumption was 1.75 litres per 1000 km, compared with the norm of 0.5 litres per 1000 km used in the assessment for that engine.

The seller argued that higher oil consumption is a characteristic or typical fault of the engine. The court found that the possible occurrence of typical faults does not automatically turn a specific serious defect into an agreed characteristic. The evidence showed a long-term problem that already existed at the time of sale.

The buyer notified the seller and waited for a proposed solution. The seller did not respond.

Outcome: the Circuit Court upheld the award of 8150.74 euros, which included the 6500-euro purchase price, damages and default interest. The claim for 74.04 euros in damages and 2.79 euros in default interest was dismissed.

For you: you do not have to wait for the engine to break down completely. Proven excessive oil consumption and the resulting need for major repairs may also give rise to the seller’s liability.

11. The engine broke down within two days: the buyer’s 8770-euro claim was dismissed

Seller: a private individual. Buyer: a private individual.

Tartu County Court judgment of 29.04.2024 in 2-23-12455/24, particularly points 29–40.

The buyer paid 15,500 euros for the car. Two days later, the engine started knocking and smoking. The buyer commissioned examinations and claimed the costs of a replacement engine, installation, transport and other expenses.

The car was about ten years old with a mileage of about 270,000 km. Although the buyer also submitted an opinion on an earlier substandard repair, the court did not consider a lack of conformity proven, taking into account, among other things, the age, the extent of use and the assessments of how quickly the fault had arisen.

In addition, the buyer had not demanded that the seller repair the car or given the seller the opportunity to do so. The seller’s request for further evidence could not be regarded as an unequivocal refusal to repair.

Outcome: the 8770-euro claim and the claim for default interest were dismissed. The buyer was ordered to pay the seller 2972.20 euros in procedural costs.

For you: even a two-day interval does not guarantee a win. This is a specific County Court assessment of the evidence, not a general rule that the seller of a high-mileage car is never liable.

12. Engine failure after one month and 20 days: the workshop’s explanation did not sufficiently prove a pre-sale defect

Seller: a private individual. Buyer: a private individual.

Tallinn Circuit Court order of 04.01.2022 in 2-20-3683/30, particularly points 27–29.

According to the buyer, the engine seized about one month and 20 days after the purchase. The buyer relied on a workshop’s explanation about an injector problem and internal engine wear, and claimed 1944 euros as repair costs or as a price reduction.

In the court’s view, the evidence did not sufficiently explain which damage required the engine to be replaced and whether its cause existed at handover. It was also not proven why this was not normal wear and tear for a ten-year-old car.

The buyer had the defects remedied before notifying the seller. The claim was sent to the seller about a month after the repair.

Outcome: in the County Court, the 1944-euro claim was dismissed. The Circuit Court refused to accept the appeal for proceedings, as no clear material error required for that purpose was found in the simplified-procedure judgment.

For you: a repair invoice and a general explanation that “the engine was worn” may not prove a private seller’s liability.

13. An engine repaired by welding: the defect was proven, but the buyer lost because of the notification

Seller: a private individual. Buyer: a private individual.

Supreme Court judgment of 15.11.2017 in 2-15-18987/26, particularly points 11–14; later Tallinn Circuit Court judgment of 19.02.2018 in 2-15-18987/31, particularly points 30–41.

The car was sold for 6000 euros as being in very good technical condition. It later turned out that the engine’s camshaft mounting bracket had been restored by welding.

The Supreme Court sent the case back for a new hearing: the courts had to assess the car’s agreed quality, not only whether such a repair method is used in practice.

At the new hearing, it was found that the car did not match the very good condition promised in the advertisement and that it was a hidden defect. But the buyer did not prove timely notification. Nor was it proven that the seller knew about the defect, which would have allowed the buyer to rely on it despite the defective notification.

Outcome: the 6164.50-euro claim was dismissed. The buyer had to reimburse 1650 euros in County Court costs and 960 euros in appeal and cassation costs, plus default interest.

For you: you can lose a dispute even over a proven hidden defect because of how you acted before the proceedings.

14. The car was sold through a company, but the seller remained a private individual; the later engine failure was caused by the buyer

Seller: a private individual. Intermediary: a company. The car was acquired through leasing.

Tallinn Circuit Court judgment of 30.01.2020 in 2-18-4406/65, particularly points 44–55.

The car cost 13,990 euros. A starting problem soon appeared, which the intermediary tried to fix for a long time. Later, the engine seized and the buyer claimed the purchase price or the same amount as damages.

The court took into account that the buyer had driven about 55,000 km with the car. It was not proven that the original starting problem caused the engine to seize. The buyer had been aware of an oil leak and the urgent need for repair, but continued to use the car. In the court’s view, the later unusability was caused by the buyer’s own action or inaction.

Outcome: the claim for the return of 13,990 euros or alternative damages and 360 euros in legal costs was dismissed. In the appeal proceedings, the buyer was ordered to pay 1665 euros in procedural costs.

For you: a company’s sales lot or intermediation does not necessarily mean that the contractual seller was a business. The buyer’s later conduct may also separate the final engine failure from the original problem.

15. The car stalled on the day of purchase: the seller was liable, but the engine replacement costs were not proven

Seller: a private individual. Buyer: a company — not a consumer sale.

Tallinn Circuit Court judgment of 12.01.2024 in 2-22-14574/41, particularly points 8–20.

The car would no longer start after just a few kilometres. Temperature and stalling problems later appeared. The buyer had the engine replaced and, together with other costs, claimed 4539.69 euros.

The Circuit Court found that the car did not conform to the contract and that the defect existed at handover. The seller had clearly rejected liability and bearing the costs, so a separate additional deadline was not needed.

But the buyer did not submit a sufficient expert assessment proving the necessity of replacing the whole engine and the scope of repairs claimed. Photographs were no substitute for this.

Outcome: the seller was ordered to pay only 298.79 euros: 270 euros for a trailer and 28.79 euros for pre-trial legal assistance. The claim was dismissed in the amount of 4240.90 euros.

For you: the seller’s liability and the amount of justified repair costs must be proven separately.

16. An engine problem appeared immediately: the buyer did not prove that it existed at handover or allow it to be repaired

Seller: a private individual. Buyer: a company — not a consumer sale.

Tartu Circuit Court judgment of 26.09.2024 in 2-22-6170/59, particularly points 9–12.

A company bought the car for 3100 euros. Technical problems appeared immediately after the purchase, and the buyer withdrew and claimed the purchase price and 614.49 euros in damages.

The court-ordered expert examination did not confirm that the whole engine needed replacing. The mechanical part of the engine was worn, but to remedy the fault that had appeared, the fuel supply system had to be repaired. It was also not sufficiently proven that a defect preventing use existed at the time the car was handed over.

In addition, the seller had not been given an opportunity to repair a defect that could be remedied.

Outcome: the claims for the purchase price and damages were dismissed. In the appeal proceedings, the buyer was ordered to pay the seller 976 euros in procedural costs plus default interest.

For you: buying in a company’s name deprives the buyer of the consumer sale presumption of proof; an immediate problem alone does not satisfy all the conditions for withdrawal.

4. What do these cases show together?

4.1. A failure within a month is important evidence, not an automatic win

Courts have recognised the seller’s liability for defects that appeared within a few days or a week. But buyers have also lost even where the fault appeared within two days.

So there is no rule that “the engine broke down within 30 days — the seller pays”. The time period is assessed together with the nature of the damage, the condition of the car, the seller’s promises and the evidence. Compare 2-20-13495/48 and 2-23-12455/24.

4.2. “Used”, “old” and “high mileage” do not settle the dispute on their own

Age and mileage affect what quality can reasonably be expected. But they do not automatically turn a substandard repair or long-term running without lubrication into normal wear and tear.

The technical cause of a defect is often more important than its general label. Engine wear may be normal; similar damage may, however, result from unusual lack of maintenance. This distinction is shown by 2-17-3306/27 and 2-14-37663/54.

4.3. A roadworthiness test is not general proof that the engine is free of defects

A hidden defect inside the engine may go undetected in a roadworthiness test. On the other hand, the test may be important for assessing when a specific fault arose, if an expert explains that a car with such a fault could not have passed the inspection.

So neither extreme is right: neither “the test releases the seller” nor “the test does not count at all”. Compare 2-20-13495/48, points 50–52, and 2-22-6170/59, point 10.

4.4. The seller’s lack of knowledge and the seller’s liability are different questions

The seller’s claim that “I drove it and everything worked” does not in itself rebut a proven defect that existed at handover. Equally, liability does not arise merely because the buyer is convinced the seller is at fault.

The seller’s knowledge matters especially in cases of concealment, limitations of liability and late notification. This difference is shown by 2-20-13495/48, point 53, and 2-15-18987/31, points 38–40.

4.5. Refusing to repair and asking for more information are not the same

If the seller clearly says that they are not liable and will not take part in the repair, giving a further deadline may be pointless. If the seller reasonably asks for diagnostics or wants to inspect the car, this cannot automatically be treated as a refusal.

Compare 2-20-1903/24, point 14, and 2-23-12455/24, points 37–39.

4.6. Case law leaves room for judgement

The outcome depends especially on details such as:

• whether the damage exceeds the wear and tear to be expected of a used car;
• whether the expert assessment proves when the damage arose;
• whether the seller actually offered a proper repair;
• whether replacing the whole engine was necessary;
• whether withdrawal was justified immediately or only after an opportunity to repair;
• whether the buyer increased the damage by continuing to drive.

The Supreme Court’s general principles carry more weight than one County Court’s assessment of the evidence in a particular case. The cases presented do not allow a win percentage to be calculated for your dispute.

5. What do I recommend you do now?

1. Stop any use that increases the damage

If the engine is faulty or the workshop has told you not to start it, do not keep testing it or driving. Additional damage caused by the buyer may remain the buyer’s responsibility. Basis: VÕS § 139 subsections 1–2; a practical example is 2-18-4406/65.

2. Notify the seller in writing immediately

Include the date of purchase, the date the fault appeared, the mileage on the date of purchase and on the date of the fault, and the symptoms. As a consumer, you must report the defect within two months of becoming aware of it; in a sale between private individuals, within a reasonable time. These are deadlines for notification, not a recommendation to wait. Basis: VÕS § 220 subsections 1 and 3.

3. Make a clear demand and allow an inspection

Write that you demand that the defect be remedied at the seller’s expense, and give the car’s location. Ask the seller to propose how the inspection and repair will be arranged. Depending on the situation, set a reasonable deadline; there is no single repair deadline that suits every engine failure.

A business must generally respond to a written consumer complaint within 15 days. This does not mean that every complex engine repair must be completed within 15 days. Basis: TKS § 24 subsections 5–7.

4. Keep the technical and transaction evidence

Keep:

• the contract of sale, proof of payment and the advertisement;
• the seller’s assurances and all correspondence;
• the service history;
• diagnostics, fault codes, photos and odometer readings;
• the faulty engine and important damaged parts;
• quotes, invoices and explanations for the work.

If the engine has to be opened, agree on the inspection and documentation procedure with the seller beforehand, if possible. Throwing away the old engine or selling the car on may make later proof considerably harder.

5. Ask the workshop for a substantive written assessment

Especially against a private seller, the assessment should, if possible, answer: could such damage have arisen during your month of use, or must its cause have existed earlier?

When buying from a business as a consumer, you do not have to take on the seller’s burden of proof. But reliable diagnostics help show that the defect exists and what the justified solution is. The consumer disputes committee itself does not commission or pay for expert examinations.

6. Choose how to resolve the dispute

• A business seller and a consumer buyer: after a written complaint, you can use the consumer disputes committee or go to court.
• A private seller: the committee does not resolve disputes between private individuals; if no agreement is reached, you will generally have to go to the County Court.
• The committee’s proceedings are free of charge, but its decision is not enforceable. If the seller does not comply with it, court proceedings may be needed. Basis: TKS § 24 subsection 9, § 40 subsection 3 and § 60 subsections 1–2; TTJA explanations of the committee’s proceedings.

Do not confuse the notification deadline with the limitation period: the general limitation period for a contractual claim is three years, and for a claim arising from a defect in goods sold it generally starts from handover. Basis: TsÜS § 146 subsection 1 and VÕS § 227 subsection 1. In a sale between private individuals, the declaration of withdrawal must also be made within a reasonable time; under current consumer sale rules, this separate restriction does not apply: VÕS § 118 subsection 1 and § 223 subsection 6.

Short template for the first notice

On [date] I bought a used car from you. On [date] an engine failure appeared: [symptoms]. The car’s mileage at purchase was [reading] and when the fault appeared [reading]. The car is located at [location] and is currently not being used.

I hereby give notice of a lack of conformity with the contract and demand that the defect be remedied at your expense. Please let me know in writing how you will arrange the inspection and any repair of the car. I will make the car available for inspection. I attach the available diagnostics and am keeping the faulty parts.

Summary of your situation

If you bought from a business as a consumer and the engine broke down a month later, your legal position is generally strong: the lack of conformity is presumed to have existed before the sale. This does not, however, remove the need to show an actual defect and to keep the evidence.

If you bought from a private individual, the seller may also have to pay, but you will usually need technical evidence that the cause of the fault existed before the purchase.

For a more precise assessment, the following would need to be known: the seller’s status, the date of purchase, the car’s age and mileage, the promises in the advertisement, the workshop’s diagnosis, and whether you have already notified the seller or ordered a repair.