Used car sale contracts routinely contain clauses along the lines of: “the buyer confirms that they are aware of the vehicle’s technical condition and raises no objections” or “the vehicle is sold as seen.” Sellers treat these clauses as a shield against complaints. A judgment of the Poznań Regional Court of 20 May 2014 (case ref. XV Ca 330/14) shows that this shield has serious cracks in it.
Contents
- What “awareness of the vehicle’s condition” actually means
- When an exclusion clause is ineffective
- When the seller is genuinely released from liability
- What about a standard inspection before purchase
- How the seller’s own assurances can work against them
- Practical conclusions
- A note on the legal framework
- FAQ
What “Awareness of the Vehicle’s Condition” Actually Means
In the case before the Poznań Regional Court, the contract contained a clause stating that the sellers confirmed the vehicle had no hidden technical defects, and that the buyer confirmed her awareness of the vehicle’s technical condition.
The court held unambiguously that this clause could not be treated as an exclusion of warranty liability. The buyer had merely confirmed that the vehicle’s technical condition was known to her – but her claims did not arise from any complaint about the technical condition as such. They arose from the fact that the car did not have the properties the sellers had assured her it possessed.
In other words: a general statement of awareness of the vehicle’s condition is not the same as knowledge of specific defects. That is a fundamental distinction which courts draw clearly.
When an Exclusion Clause Is Ineffective
A seller’s statutory warranty liability is absolute. It attaches regardless of whether the seller caused the defect, whether they are in any way at fault, or even whether they knew or could have known that the vehicle was defective.
This means a seller cannot effectively rely on a clause about the buyer’s “awareness of the technical condition” if the buyer did not in fact know about specific defects. A contractual provision does not substitute for the buyer’s actual knowledge.
The court also noted an inconsistency in the seller’s position. The seller criticised the buyer for failing to inspect the car with sufficient care – yet admitted that when he bought the same vehicle himself, he had not looked at it closely, because he was “not an expert in mechanics or bodywork” and it “was simply not something that interested him.” The court made clear that arguments of this kind carry no legal weight.
When the Seller Is Genuinely Released from Liability
Under Article 557 § 1 of the Civil Code, a seller is released from warranty liability only where the buyer knew of the defect at the time the contract was concluded. That knowledge must be specific – it must relate to a specific defect – and it must be linked to the buyer’s decision to purchase despite that defect.
The court set out this requirement precisely: the condition would be met if the sellers had explicitly told the buyer about the existing defect, and she – fully aware of it – had decided to buy the vehicle anyway. Only in those circumstances is the seller’s liability for that particular defect excluded.
A general contractual statement that the buyer “is aware of the technical condition” – without identifying specific defects and without evidence that the buyer actually knew about them – does not satisfy this requirement.
What About a Standard Inspection Before Purchase
Sellers often argue that a defect could have been noticed had the buyer exercised reasonable care and examined the vehicle carefully. The court rejected this line of argument.
A buyer has the right to inspect a vehicle before purchase, but is not under a legal obligation to carry out a detailed technical examination – unless this is standard practice in the circumstances. What is more, Article 557 § 1 of the Civil Code expressly provides that a seller cannot derive favourable consequences from the fact that defects could easily have been noticed by the buyer with ordinary care.
If a defect was hidden – requiring, for example, inspection of the vehicle from below on a lift, as in the case under discussion – the buyer does not lose their right to make a claim simply because they did not find it during a standard viewing.
How the Seller’s Own Assurances Can Work Against Them
Verbal and written assurances given by the seller about the vehicle’s properties play a particularly important role. If the seller assured the buyer that the car had never been in an accident, was in full working order or had specific features – and this turned out to be untrue – the seller cannot then hide behind a contractual clause about the buyer’s awareness of the technical condition.
The court stated directly that what prevented the defects from being treated as acceptable was precisely the fact that the sellers had assured the buyer of their non-existence. A seller’s assurances and liability exclusion clauses cannot simultaneously work in the seller’s favour.
Practical Conclusions
If you are the buyer: signing a statement that you are aware of the vehicle’s technical condition does not deprive you of the right to claim for defects you did not know about at the time of purchase. What matters is your actual knowledge of specific defects – not the wording of a general clause in the contract. Keep all assurances made by the seller, preferably in writing.
If you are the seller: general clauses excluding liability for defects are ineffective. You are liable for defects in the vehicle even if you did not know about them. Only the buyer’s specific knowledge of specific defects releases you from liability for those particular defects. Be careful about assurances you give regarding the vehicle’s properties – they can form an independent basis for your liability.
A Note on the Legal Framework
The judgment in case XV Ca 330/14 concerned a private sale between individuals, where the statutory warranty provisions of the Polish Civil Code apply.
When buying from a trader – a dealer, car lot or showroom – a different set of rules has applied since 1 January 2023: the provisions on conformity of goods with the contract. Under this regime, clauses excluding or limiting the seller’s liability towards a consumer are generally ineffective – the consumer is protected regardless of what the contract says.
FAQ
Does a clause saying “the buyer is aware of the technical condition” take away my right to claim? No. A general statement of awareness of the technical condition is not the same as knowledge of specific defects. If you did not know about a defect at the time of purchase, you retain your full rights under the statutory warranty or the rules on non-conformity of goods with the contract.
Can a seller escape liability if they did not know about the defect themselves? No. Warranty liability is absolute – it does not depend on the seller’s knowledge or fault. It is enough that the vehicle had a defect at the time of sale.
When is a seller released from liability? Only when the buyer knew about a specific defect at the time the contract was concluded and decided to buy the vehicle anyway. The knowledge must be specific – it must relate to a particular, identified fault.
Did I have to inspect the car thoroughly before buying in order to keep my right to claim? No. The law does not impose a duty on the buyer to carry out a detailed technical examination. Furthermore, the fact that a defect could have been noticed with ordinary care does not release the seller from liability if the buyer did not in fact know about it.
Can the seller’s assurances override exclusion clauses in the contract? Yes – and they work against the seller. If the seller assured you the car was in good working order or had never been in an accident, and this turned out to be false, the seller is liable for those properties regardless of what any exclusion clause in the contract says.
Contact Us
If the seller is relying on a contractual clause to avoid liability for a defective vehicle, it is worth checking whether that clause actually protects them – because very often it does not.
It pays to be properly prepared: both in knowing what you can claim and in having a clear strategy.
We handle cases for drivers in Poznań and across the Wielkopolska region, with in-person and online consultations available for clients elsewhere in Poland.
Adwokat Marta Krzyżanowicz and Adwokat Michalina Koligot Law Firm “Adwokat dla Kierowców w Poznaniu”
ul. Adama Mickiewicza 18/3, 60-834 Poznań
tel. +48 795 001 536 · +48 531 335 713
kontakt@adwokatdlakierowcy.pl · www.adwokatdlakierowcy.pl
This text is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case requires individual analysis.
