A judicial dispute between two friends due to a luxury car worth 5 million dirhams

Affection and friendship turned into a judicial rivalry between two people of the nationality of an Arab country, due to a luxury car worth approximately five million dirhams, and the Civil Court in Dubai ruled to reject the lawsuit due to the weak evidence of evidence.

In detail, an Arab man filed a lawsuit in which he demanded that he be sentenced to four million and 990 thousand dirhams, and a clearing with a debt deserved in his possession in favor of the defendant amounting to two million and 300 thousand dirhams, and then he is entitled to the latter, the amount of two million and 690 thousand dirhams.

A bond to his lawsuit said that a friendship relationship has to the defendant, and his last guarantee in a debt amounting to two million and 300 thousand dirhams for another person, and then he deserved this amount to the defendant.

He added that he agreed with his friend to sell him a luxury sports car worth four million and 990 thousand dirhams, to deduct the amount that the plaintiff owes, and pay him the rest of the car within six months.

He pointed out that he actually transferred the ownership of the vehicle to the defendant, but the latter did not abide by what he agreed upon and did not pay him the rest of the vehicle’s value after the implementation of the clearing, which is two million and 690 thousand dirhams. The prosecutor continued that he tried to settle the matter amicably with his friend, but the latter did not respond, which led him to file a lawsuit and attached with the case newspaper. .

For his part, a legal representative of the defendant came before the court and submitted a memorandum in which he denied the prosecutor’s right to his requests, and demanded the judiciary to reject the lawsuit for lack of validity and evidence and the plaintiff’s inability to prove his lawsuit, as the car contract he submitted to the court is not covered by the signing of the defendant, and is not considered an argument It, and the two rivalries exchanged notes, and then the court decided to delegate an expert in the case.

In his report, the expert ended up proving the transfer of the ownership of the car, the subject of the conflict from the plaintiff to the defendant, but the parties to the conflict did not provide any details on how to complete the transfer of ownership.

The expert stated that according to what was stated in mutual correspondence through the WhatsApp application between the defendant and a third person who turns out that the car was present in the positions of the latter and not in the claimant of the plaintiff, and that person was behaving in the owner’s behavior and offered it to the defendant to sell it in his favor.

In his report, the expert indicated that, according to these correspondence, the car was recorded in the name of the defendant, and the third person sent a copy of the property document.

The expert explained that, given the previous commercial transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the sale and purchase of other cars, they were keen to document them with official documents, as the defendant edits a bank check to the prosecutor of the value of the car to be purchased, and the prosecutor is transferred to him, but in the current case the prosecutor did not submit Any documents proving that the sale took place naturally between him and the defendant.

The expert emphasized that the contract was supported by the lawsuit submitted by the plaintiff, not to be an accounting evidence in the face of the defendant, as he is noticeable by the prosecutor’s signature only, and the correspondence between them was evacuated, which indicates that there is an agreement regarding the disputed car, but on the contrary, the plaintiff pledged during the messages of the “WhatsApp” by paying the amount that is observed in favor of the defendant, and then he has no right to his demand, and this is what the court reassured and ruled that the case was rejected.