Having a used vehicle inspected before purchase does not mean that the buyer must bear the consequences of every fault that emerges after the sale. Conversely, a person who knowingly purchases a vehicle with a problem disclosed in the inspection report cannot necessarily invoke liability for latent defects in respect of that same problem. The decisive considerations are the nature of the problem, whether it existed at the time of sale and what information was disclosed to the buyer, rather than the mere existence of a report.
Distinguishing Latent Defects From Ordinary Wear And Tear
Under Article 219 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO), the seller is liable where the vehicle lacks the qualities represented by the seller or has defects that substantially reduce its value or its expected utility. This liability does not depend on the seller’s knowledge of the defect. Accordingly, a seller’s assertion that they did not personally tamper with the mileage or carry out an earlier defective repair does not, by itself, exclude liability.
However, the condition reasonably expected of a used vehicle differs from that of a new one. Its age, mileage, maintenance history, disclosed damage and the qualities promised at the time of sale must be assessed together. Ordinary wear resulting from use must be distinguished from a technical problem that existed upon delivery but only became apparent later. Although engine failure shortly after the sale is relevant evidence, it does not, by itself, establish the existence of a defect. The cause of the failure should be determined through technical examination, while the consumer’s statutory evidential presumption explained below must also be taken into account when assessing the vehicle’s condition upon delivery.
Does An Inspection Report Release The Seller From Liability
A vehicle inspection is a technical assessment limited by its scope and the examination methods used. A statement that a particular component was not checked does not mean that it was free from defects or that the buyer accepted every problem affecting it. In particular, a problem that requires dismantling the engine or becomes apparent only during use may not be detectable through a routine inspection.
In its decision dated 13 November 2025, Case No. 2023/555, Decision No. 2025/1879, the 13th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal examined a dispute concerning engine failure caused by unsuitable chain and tensioner components. Although the earlier inspection report relied on by the seller stated that the timing mechanism and chain had not been checked, the report did not release the seller from liability. The Chamber rejected the defence seeking to attribute liability for the latent defect exclusively to the previous seller or the inspection business.
Accordingly, stating that “the vehicle was inspected” or “the report was given to the buyer” is insufficient on its own. A component that was not examined and a fault that was expressly disclosed do not produce the same legal consequences.
Knowingly Purchasing A Vehicle With A Disclosed Fault
Under Article 222 of the TCO, the seller is not liable for defects known to the buyer when the contract is concluded. For defects that the buyer could have identified through a sufficient examination, whether the seller expressly warranted the absence of defects is also relevant. The stage at which the inspection report was provided to the buyer and the extent to which it disclosed the disputed problem are therefore decisive.
In its decision dated 25 February 2026, Case No. 2025/4122, Decision No. 2026/1094, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation considered a vehicle sale in which the pre-sale report disclosed findings including excessive engine blow-by, oil leaks in various areas, chain noise and oil smoke at high engine speeds. The Chamber upheld the regional court of appeal’s decision dismissing the claim on the ground that the vehicle had been purchased with knowledge of the existing faults identified in the report.
This does not mean that every inspection report protects the seller. The disclosure of the specific fault in the report must be considered alongside any general statement in the notarised sale agreement that the vehicle was “inspected and accepted as seen”. Such a general acceptance clause does not automatically establish a waiver of claims concerning all undisclosed latent defects. Under Article 221 of the TCO, agreements excluding or limiting the seller’s liability are also invalid where the seller is grossly at fault in transferring a defective vehicle.
The Liability Of The Seller And The Inspection Business
The seller’s liability for delivering a defective vehicle and the inspection business’s liability for an inadequate examination rest on different legal grounds. For the seller, the issue is whether the vehicle fails to conform to the contract; for the inspection business, it is whether the agreed examination was properly performed and whether any failure caused the loss. It cannot be assumed that every technical problem must necessarily be detectable in a pre-sale inspection.
In its decision dated 6 February 2025, Case No. 2021/1590, Decision No. 2025/113, the 43rd Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal recognised the seller’s liability for a latent defect manifested by excessive oil consumption, as well as the inspection company’s liability for preparing its report without taking the necessary measurements. An inspection error therefore does not automatically bring the seller’s liability to an end.
Where claims are brought against both businesses, the basis of each party’s liability and its contribution to the loss must be established separately. The same loss cannot be recovered twice; a reduction in the purchase price, repair costs and other heads of loss must not result in double recovery.
The Difference Between Consumer Sales And Sales Between Private Individuals
Under Article 3 of Law No. 6502 on the Protection of Consumers, a consumer transaction requires the seller to act for commercial or professional purposes and the buyer to act for purposes outside their trade or profession. Accordingly, purchasing a used vehicle for personal use from a dealership selling it in the course of its business may constitute a consumer transaction. Purchasing the same vehicle for resale, use as a taxi or use in a business’s commercial activities is not a consumer purchase. Buying from a dealership is not sufficient on its own; the buyer’s purpose must also be assessed.
Where a person sells their own private vehicle outside any commercial or professional activity, the buyer’s intention to use it personally does not, by itself, create a consumer transaction. In its decision dated 19 January 2017, Case No. 2016/13351, Decision No. 2017/199, the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation held that an individual privately selling their used vehicle was not a seller within the meaning of Law No. 6502 and that the dispute should be resolved under the general provisions of law. The decision of the 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 15 January 2018, Case No. 2015/34961, Decision No. 2018/41, adopts the same distinction. These decisions concern the scope of consumer law rather than the six-month presumption itself.
Not every sale between two natural persons therefore has the same legal character. A dealer who is a natural person may also act as a seller in the course of commercial or professional activity. An ordinary vehicle sale between two private individuals, however, is generally governed by the Turkish Code of Obligations.
Which Sales Are Covered By The Six-Month Presumption Of Defect
Article 10(1) of Law No. 6502, entitled “Burden of proof”, provides as follows:
“Defects which become apparent within six months of the date of delivery are presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. In such cases, the burden of proving that the goods were not defective lies with the seller. This presumption shall not apply where it is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the defect.”
This provision also applies to used vehicle sales that qualify as consumer transactions; it is not confined to new vehicles. Once the consumer establishes the existence of a defect and that it became apparent within the first six months, the defect is presumed to have existed upon delivery. The seller may rebut the presumption, for example by proving that the problem resulted from an accident or improper use after delivery. The presumption does not apply where it is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the defect. Whether ordinary wear and tear in a used vehicle constitutes a defect must also be assessed separately.
In its decision dated 6 October 2025, Case No. 2025/1216, Decision No. 2025/4563, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation applied Article 10(1) of Law No. 6502 to paint defects identified through an inspection shortly after delivery and stated that the burden of proof lay with the seller. That decision concerns the sale of a new vehicle and should not be presented as a used vehicle case. Nevertheless, the statutory provision applied makes no distinction between new and used vehicles.
This six-month statutory presumption does not apply to purchases made for commercial or professional purposes or to sales between private individuals that do not qualify as consumer transactions. The TCO contains no equivalent six-month presumption applicable to all vehicle sales. In such sales, the buyer must, as a rule, prove that the defect existed upon delivery. The emergence of a fault shortly after delivery may be assessed as evidence together with technical findings, but does not, by itself, reverse the burden of proof. Any separate warranty or assurance of freedom from defects given by the seller remains relevant.
The six-month period is neither a time limit for bringing proceedings nor a warranty period. Its expiry does not automatically extinguish rights arising from defects; the applicable limitation period and other conditions must be examined separately. In sales governed by the TCO, the duties to examine the goods and notify defects are also important. A latent defect must be notified immediately upon discovery, subject to the exceptions under Article 225 of the TCO concerning the seller’s gross fault and defects that a professional seller ought to have known about. The short notification periods specific to commercial sales between merchants do not apply to every used vehicle buyer.
The Importance Of Technical Evidence When Bringing A Claim
Where the conditions for liability for defects are satisfied, the available remedies may include rescission of the contract, a reduction in the purchase price, repair free of charge or, where possible, replacement with an equivalent vehicle free from defects, depending on the applicable provisions and the circumstances of the case. Not every engine failure entitles the buyer to a full refund, and a reduction in the purchase price does not necessarily equal the repair invoice.
The advertisement, pre-sale correspondence, every page of the inspection report, and servicing and roadworthiness inspection records should be retained together. It is important to document the problem and any components replaced before repairs are carried out and, where necessary, to seek court-ordered preservation of evidence. The timing and content of the notification to the seller should also be capable of proof. If there is a safety hazard or a risk of the fault worsening, the vehicle should not continue to be used; evidence should be preserved while the necessary safety precautions are taken.
Resolving a used vehicle dispute cannot depend solely on statements such as “there is an inspection report” or “the vehicle is old”. The essential assessment requires the condition upon delivery, the disclosed qualities and the subsequently emerging problem to be examined within the same technical and legal framework.
For information about our services concerning the assessment of disputes arising from vehicle sales and inspection services, legal advice and the conduct of litigation, please contact us.