Statutory rights and a warranty are two different things

Statutory liability for defects is the legal claim against the seller that the car had the agreed qualities when it was handed over. Nobody has to agree it; it belongs to the contract of sale in the same way as the duty to pay the price. The party who owes it is always the person or business that sold you the car, and nobody else.

A warranty is a contract in its own right. It is promised by a manufacturer, a dealer or an insurer, and what it delivers is defined solely by its own terms. It sits alongside the statutory claims rather than replacing them — a dealer cannot shed liability for defects by selling you a warranty instead.

The first practical consequence follows from that separation: when something goes wrong you may have two addressees, and they run on different time limits, different conditions and different rules of proof. Checking both, rather than settling for the first answer, regularly puts you in the better position.

A defect is a deviation from what was agreed, or from what you were entitled to expect of this particular car. The yardstick is not showroom condition but age, mileage, price and everything the advertisement and the contract said. A twelve-year-old car with worn brake pads has no defect; the same car with a concealed accident history does.

Which is why every description in a listing is also a statement about condition. “No accident damage”, “odometer reading as displayed”, “full service history”, “two previous owners” — these are not advertising words but statements against which the required condition is measured. Whoever writes them narrows the room an exclusion clause would otherwise leave them.

The line between a defect and ordinary wear is the commonest point of dispute on a used car, and it does not run along the component but along the expectation. A wearing part that fails earlier than is usual at this mileage may well be a defect; a part that has reached the end of its designed life is not. In practice that question is answered by a workshop's findings, not by an opinion.

The seller is not liable for the car never breaking; they are liable for it having been sound at handover. Damage that appears three months later founds a claim only if its cause was already present when the car changed hands. Nearly every dispute turns on exactly that point.

In principle the party relying on that point has to prove it — the buyer. German law reverses the burden for a consumer buying from a trader during an initial period after handover: in that phase the defect is presumed to have been present already, and the dealer has to show otherwise. Swiss law has no such general reversal; there the burden stays with the buyer, which gives an early, documented finding additional weight.

In practice that means the same thing in both countries: the value of a claim is decided by the evidence created in the first few days. A dated workshop report, photographs, the odometer reading at handover and the written description from the listing are together worth more than any later recollection of what was said.

Here the two legal systems diverge sharply, and the difference can cost the entire claim. Swiss law expects the buyer to examine the thing after handover as far as is customary, and to give notice of a defect discovered immediately. Waiting is treated as approving the car as it stands — however serious the defect may be.

German law imposes no such general duty to give notice on a consumer buyer. There it is mainly the limitation period that determines how long a claim can be enforced. Between businesses, however, a duty to examine and give notice without delay applies there too — a point that concerns dealers, traders and self-employed buyers registering a car to a business.

Because the periods and their length can change and run differently depending on the constellation, one rule of conduct holds in both countries: give notice in writing at once, describe the defect, record the date and make sure it was received. Notice given too early has never done any harm. Which period applies in a given case is set by the law of the country where the purchase happened, not by the law of where you live.

The remedies differ too, and the difference shapes the whole process. Under German law subsequent performance comes first: the buyer demands repair or a replacement, and only where that fails, is refused or is unreasonable do rescission, a price reduction or damages follow. So the seller has a right to put the defect right themselves first.

Swiss law gives the buyer, by statute, the choice between rescission — unwinding the sale — and a reduction in price. There is no automatic right to have the defect repaired; that right exists where it has been agreed, and many dealer contracts do agree it expressly. A court may also award a reduction instead of rescission where unwinding the sale would be disproportionate.

What follows from this is the same in either country: set the seller a reasonable deadline, in writing, with a clear description of the defect and a clear statement of what you want. Do not have the car repaired at a workshop of your own choosing before the seller has had a chance to respond — that removes both their opportunity to remedy it and your own evidence.

Almost every private sale contract contains a sentence excluding liability for defects. Between private individuals that is permitted in both countries, and it is the main reason a private purchase is cheaper than the same car from a dealer: the price difference is the price of the legal position.

That exclusion has limits, though, and they matter to both sides. It does not help with a defect the seller knew about and concealed — deliberate concealment defeats any exclusion. Nor does it help where the seller expressly promised a quality: writing “no accident damage” into a contract while excluding all liability in the next line writes a contradiction that works against the person who wrote it.

Against a consumer, a commercial seller cannot simply contract liability away. How far it may be shortened on a used car, and with what formalities, the two systems regulate differently and occasionally amend — which is why the valid answer sits in the statute of the country of purchase and not in a guide. What does not change: a boilerplate exclusion in a dealer's contract is something to read and raise before signing.

A warranty is neither a weaker nor a stronger right; it is a promise of performance with its own wording. So it can be read like an insurance policy: what is covered, what is excluded, what you must do to keep the cover alive, and how much it pays at most when it is called on.

The commonest reason a warranty claim is refused is not an exclusion in the cover section but a breached obligation: a missed service interval, maintenance outside the prescribed network, a missing invoice, an undeclared retrofit. So anyone holding a warranty keeps the same documentation as someone preparing to sell a car with factory cover.

For resale one question is worth hard cash: does the warranty pass to the next keeper, and on what conditions? Transferable remaining cover is a selling point that shows up in the price; cover tied to the person ends with the sale and is then worth nothing.

The order decides the position, and it is the same in both countries. Document first, give notice second, set a deadline third — and only then act. Reversing that order and repairing first leaves you with a working car and an invoice you pay yourself.

The points below are not legal advice but the steps that make a claim provable in the first place. Whether one exists in a given case depends on the contract, the country of purchase and the facts; where larger sums are involved, that is the moment for legal advice, for a legal expenses insurer or for a conciliation body.

The difference between buying privately and buying from a dealer is not only a difference in price but a difference in legal position, and both sides know it. On a car with expensive technology — a dual-clutch gearbox, air suspension, complex electronics, a high-voltage battery — that position is worth more than on a simply built car. That is where the premium most readily earns its keep.

What holds in both cases: what you check before buying, you do not have to enforce afterwards. An inspection by an independent workshop takes an hour and costs a fraction of what a dispute costs — and it produces, as a by-product, exactly the document that later settles the question of proof.

Carvexia is a party to no contract of sale and gives neither statutory nor contractual cover. The marketplace shows listings and prices; claims lie against the seller or the warranty provider, and what governs them is what stands in their documents and in the law of the country of purchase.