How to deal with the fact that the owner finds the repair order in the car after picking up the car?

I don't think it's a coincidence. It is very likely that this new car has been repaired, so I think the owner should defend his rights.

In fact, from the manufacturer and the buyer, I think this is an unfair thing for the buyer, who does not want to buy a new car, since the manufacturer 4S store has a record of returning to the factory for maintenance, then it should not be a new car**.

After investigation, the repair order was not an accident repair order, but an ordinary document, and the owner was not deceived.

After the owner picks up the car, he finds a repair order in the car, which proves that the car is a repaired car, not a first-hand car, and the owner has been deceived and should immediately go to the car shop to ask for an explanation!

Very angry, it is simply extorting money from consumers, and doing business is not honest, which will affect the entire automotive industry.

In fact, this is an ordinary transfer document, not an accident repair document. After investigation, the court found that there was no such thing as the accident car being repaired, and rejected the application. In fact, there will be this kind of list when leaving the factory, the last link of the factory, testing, every car will be tested, a little flaw can not leave the factory, and then return to the first line, to make sure that there is no problem can leave the factory.

In fact, there will be this kind of list when leaving the factory, the last link of the factory, testing, every car will be tested, a little flaw can not leave the factory, and then return to the first line, to make sure that there is no problem can leave the factory.

This owner mentioned Audi, because of the negligence of the staff in the car finally found the repair order, the repair belongs to one of the normal repair parts, the owner has lost the lawsuit, and now requires a replacement car, hoping to meet the owner, although such a car is normal, but it will be used in response.

It should be that after the car is repaired, the repair order falls in the car, and then it is discovered by the owner, it should be that the car is a second-hand car, but it is repaired.

The 4S shop claimed that it was found that the muffler of the vehicle was defective during transportation. It needs to be returned to the factory for replacement. The buyer informed that the purchase documents were not signed by himself, and he is currently buying a house and applying for a retrial.

It can be seen that after the owner picks up the car, if the repair order is found in the car, it is still necessary to make a claim according to the situation to protect their rights and interests.

Mei Peng has defended his rights and interests through legal channels. The court of first instance found that although Mei Peng did not sign the confirmation form, it could not be determined that the 4S store had committed fraud. The court of second instance held that Mei Peng did not deny that the two parties had inspected the vehicle and drove the purchased vehicle away, and that "the Appellee's act of signing on behalf of the Appellee was indeed improper, but it would not cause the Appellant to fall into a misjudgment", so Mei Peng's claim that the 4S store constituted fraud was not based on sufficient grounds.

Mei Peng said that he could not accept this result at present and would apply for a retrial, "We believe that there is no doubt about the return of the car."

The owner should keep the proof of purchase, negotiate with the seller in a timely manner, ask for a refund or replacement of the car, and when the seller does not agree, he should promptly complain to the consumer association to protect his legitimate rights and interests.

First of all, we can find the store and negotiate with the store to see how to deal with it, and if that doesn't work, we can find a lawyer and seek legal assistance.

Yes, the owner found the repair order. I think this matter can be refunded one and pay three, because the seller's behavior is suspected of fraud.

This kind of shoddy behavior to deceive customers is very bad, violates the principle of civilized business, seriously harms the interests of customers, and should be strictly investigated and dealt with and severely punished. It's not as simple as refunding one and losing three.

I think you can refund one and pay three, because the 4S shop did not make it clear to the owner in advance, the owner bought the car according to the new car **, and later found the maintenance order to know that the car had been repaired is not a new car, and there is deception, so I think it can be refunded one and pay three.

Refusal of compensation,This repair order is a vehicle transfer document, not an accident vehicle. The owner's appeal has been dismissed, which is vexatious. Everyone knows that there is a final link in the appearance of the vehicle, that is, the detection link, if there is a problem there, then it will be recorded on the list, and then return to the first line to continue the test, so that it can leave the factory.

Everyone knows that there is a final link in the appearance of the vehicle, that is, the detection link, if there is a problem there, then it will be recorded on the list, and then return to the front line, continue to test, so that it can leave the factory, this is a normal behavior, there is no vehicle that caused the accident, so the relevant departments rejected the application of this gentleman.

Of course, it is to double the compensation and return the owner of a new car, it is illegal for them to do so, to repair the second-hand car, and then sell it to the owner as a new car, they are illegal.

The shop responded that the repair order was from another car, but it was accidentally dropped on a new car, not a new one.

This shop shows that this kind of small parts repair is normal, belongs to the repair process of local slight repair within the production plant, and the current result is that the owner has lost the lawsuit, but the owner has asked to change the car, and I personally think that the follow-up 4S shop will definitely change the car.

If a repair order is found in the new car, no one will be comfortable if it is replaced. The new car I bought for hundreds of thousands of dollars was a car that returned to the factory with problems. But I think this matter can Xun Lu Neng has not yet reached the conditions of one refund and three compensation, in this case, if the car owner asks to change the car or return the car and the 4S shop is not appropriate, you can sue.

However, the law will not necessarily rule in favor of the car owner, and the court will award to the truly reasonable party based on the actual situation.

It is reported that this car was given by Mr. Huang to his son-in-law Mei Peng, so the repair order was also discovered by the son-in-law. This Mr. Mei took the 4S store to court and demanded a refund of one and three compensations. If there are some problems in the provisions of the goods bought, the consumer can ask the first party to refund one and pay three, that is, to refund the price of the goods themselves and make three times the compensation.

The vehicle in the incident does not seem to meet this condition for compensation. The 4S shop said that the vehicle was repaired before it was shipped to the store for sale, and the production process of the vehicle was more complicated, and it would be inspected at the time of delivery, and if a problem was found, it would be sent back to the previous procedure for repair, but it would ensure that the vehicle was brand new before leaving the factory. The repair order was generated at this time, and it was not Mr. Mei who believed that the jujube imitation was found to have a problem in the sales process and returned to the factory for repair.

In this case, Mr. Mei's refund of one and three may not be realized. Because the 4S store also belongs to the unwitting party, there is no real sense of fraud consumers, and it does not belong to the sale of problem vehicles. The content of the repair is only to replace the muffler, so in principle, Mr. Mei's chances of winning the lawsuit are not very good.

As consumers, we also understand Mr. Mei's feelings. The car I bought for hundreds of thousands of dollars was actually repaired, and I would be very angry when I thought about it. But since there is no problem with the vehicle before it leaves the factory, is this repair order negligible?

In fact, there are also opinions. As a consumer, Mr. Mei feels that he can't get over the hurdle in his heart, so he can naturally continue to appeal, and I believe that the law will give the most fair judgment.

There is fraud. Because if this new car has been repaired, then it is a problematic car, not a new car.

Yes, the 4S store did not truthfully explain the situation to the customers, and the man had reason to sue them.

The 4S store did not inform the behavior of fraud. If you buy a new car in a 4S store but find a repair order, and the store does not inform the owner in time, this behavior is intentional and should be found to be fraudulent.