Sellers of stolen vehicles frequently defend themselves with the argument: “three years have passed since the theft – under Article 169 of the Civil Code you have become the owner, so there are no grounds for withdrawing from the contract.” This argument is wrong and rests on a deliberate or ignorant distortion of what that provision actually means.
What Article 169 of the Civil Code Says and Why It Exists
Article 169 of the Civil Code establishes protection for a buyer acting in good faith. Where a person without authority to dispose of a moveable item sells and delivers it, the buyer acquires ownership at the moment of taking possession – unless they act in bad faith. An exception applies to stolen or otherwise involuntarily lost items: for three years from the theft, the buyer cannot acquire ownership even where they acted in good faith. Only once those three years have elapsed does that possibility arise.
The purpose of the provision is unambiguous: to protect the buyer from losing the vehicle to the original owner – not to give the seller a defence against liability for selling a stolen car.
Two Independent Institutions – They Do Not Exclude Each Other
Article 169 of the Civil Code and the warranty for legal defects are two separate legal mechanisms that operate independently.
Article 169 governs whether and when a buyer can acquire ownership of an item from a person without authority to sell it. This is a discretionary right – the buyer may rely on it, but is not required to.
The warranty for legal defects (Article 556¹ of the Civil Code) governs the seller’s liability to the buyer for having sold an item that was not theirs to sell. This is objective liability – the seller is liable regardless of their knowledge of the defect.
The Supreme Court addressed this directly in its judgment of 24 July 2008 (case ref. IV CSK 182/08): the purpose of Article 169 § 1 of the Civil Code is to improve the position of a good faith buyer, not to make it harder for them to use the legal instruments available to free themselves from the ties of an unsuccessful transaction.
What the Buyer Can Choose
A buyer who acquired a stolen vehicle in good faith and for whom three years have already elapsed since the theft faces a choice.
Option one: remain the owner of the vehicle. The buyer can rely on Article 169 and treat themselves as having acquired ownership. This avoids the need to return the car. It comes, however, with the risk of ongoing claims from the original owner, potential insurance difficulties and continuing legal uncertainty.
Option two: withdraw from the contract. The buyer can submit a notice of withdrawal from the contract on grounds of a legal defect and claim a full refund. The expiry of three years from the theft has no bearing on this right. The buyer recovers their money and is freed from all problems connected with the vehicle.
The choice belongs to the buyer – not to the seller.
The Deadline for Withdrawing
Warranty rights for a legal defect expire one year from the date on which the buyer became aware of the defect’s existence. This period cannot end before two years have elapsed from the date the item was handed over.
Answering the Seller’s Typical Arguments
“Three years have passed – you are the owner.” The buyer may be the owner – but that is their choice. Article 169 does not exclude the warranty.
“I didn’t know the car was stolen.” Irrelevant. Liability for a legal defect is objective – the seller is liable regardless of their knowledge.
“You bought in good faith, so there’s no problem.” Good faith protects the buyer against claims from the original owner – it does not protect the seller against claims from the buyer.
How to Withdraw from the Contract
Submit a written notice of withdrawal from the contract, citing a legal defect – the sale of a vehicle that was not the seller’s to sell. Call on the seller to return the purchase price within a specified deadline. Send it by recorded post with proof of delivery.
Keep the contract, payment confirmations, correspondence with the seller and all documentation relating to the vehicle – these are your evidence.
Contact Us
If you bought a vehicle that turned out to be stolen and the seller is refusing to return your money by relying on Article 169 of the Civil Code, it is worth consulting a lawyer.
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.
