Often, minor financial problems can lead to many consequences at the beginning. In the case of a leased car, this often results in the contract being terminated by the leasing company. After repossessing the vehicle, the lessor most often sells the leased item, unfortunately, often at a price significantly lower than its market value. Based on our experience in defending aggrieved clients, we advise on what to do in the event of a leasing company selling a car at an undervalued price.
💡 Key takeaways
- If the lessor terminates the agreement, for example due to late payments, they may demand payment of all overdue instalments, but they must reduce this amount by the benefits derived from the sale of the vehicle (Article 709[15] of the Civil Code).
- Leasing companies habitually sell repossessed vehicles at significantly reduced prices (even below half their market value) in order to reduce the deductible benefit.
- Courts (including the Supreme Court) point out that a lessor must exercise due diligence. Gross negligence or auctions that reduce the price within a few days can result in the sale being deemed void as undervalued, and it will be subject to settlement. hypothetical market price.
- A common practice is the so-called artificial, initial sale of a vehicle to a related "subsidiary company" at a reduced price. This pathology can also be challenged in court.
In the event of the financer's lack of due diligence during a sale, the settlement (which reduces your debt) will be based not on a drastically low price obtained, but on the most probable market price for which the vehicle could have been sold had due diligence been exercised. (Supreme Court ruling).
Selling a car through a leasing company at an undervalued price – how to defend yourself?
What is leasing and what can be the subject of a lease?
There are several types of leasing, the most common of which is operating lease. Under such an agreement, the financier (lessor) undertakes to acquire an item and give it to the user (lessee) for use for a specified period, in exchange for payment of instalments. The subject of lease is not exclusively mechanical vehicles – it can also be production lines or specialised equipment (construction, medical, etc.). Most often, however, it is a car.
Recovery and disposal of a vehicle by the financer
The Civil Code provides regulations protecting both parties, but the financier's position is usually stronger. In accordance with Article 709[13] of the Civil Code, if the lessee defaults on the payment of at least one instalment, the financier shall set an additional written deadline (with the threat of termination). If this deadline expires without effect, they may terminate the lease agreement with immediate effect. The financier then repossesses the vehicle and most often simply sells it. Unfortunately, not always at market price.
The impact of selling a leased item on the settlement with the lessee
Pursuant to Article 709[15] of the Civil Code, in the event of termination of the agreement due to the lessee's fault, the lessor may demand immediate payment of all unpaid instalments, but less any benefits obtained as a result of the termination of the lease agreement (i.e. profit from the sale). It is therefore in the lessee's interest for the car to be sold for as much as possible. Unfortunately, leasing companies often sell the vehicle at a very low price, so that the user "doesn't find out" about the high amount to be deducted from their debt.
Sale of a repossessed vehicle at a lower price – court position
A lessor has duty of care to the meaning of the Civil Code (i.e. diligence generally required in relations of a given type). If the lessor sells a car for half its value, courts increasingly recognise this as a lack of diligence.
In one high-profile case (Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw, ref. no. VII AGa 1204/18), a lessor auctioned off specialist equipment worth approximately 90,000 zł for just under 3,000 zł net. The Regional Court and the Court of Appeal ruled that the rapid reduction in the price during the auction, over the course of just a few days, constituted gross negligence on the part of the lessor. An expert witness pointed out that, although the market for post-lease equipment is governed by the principle of ‘bargain hunting’, reducing the price below 50% is unjustified.
Gross negligence of the lessor as an argument (Supreme Court ruling)
The key in this matter is the position of the Supreme Court (Supreme Court ruling, I CSK 649/15). In this case, a tractor-trailer worth PLN 165,000 was sold for... PLN 32,000. Initially, the lower courts accepted this fact, basing it on the literal "price obtained".
The Supreme Court overturned these rulings, stating clearly that liability under Article 709[15] is of a compensatory nature. If the financier acts with gross negligence and wilful misconduct when selling an item, the amount claimed from the lessee is not reduced by the undervalued price actually obtained (which is pathologically low), but rather the most probable, objective price at which the financier COULD have sold the item, if they had acted with market diligence.
This position is a gigantic line of defence for clients sued by leasing companies for huge sums of money due to carelessly sold, repossessed cars.
First sale of a vehicle to a "subsidiary company" and circumventing the law
Another pathology in the leasing market involves circumventing the law by carrying out a "first sale" (the one that generates a benefit for the lessee) at a grossly underestimated amount to a related subsidiary company. Subsequently, this "subsidiary company" sells the vehicle at the full, higher market price to an external buyer. This profit is no longer taken into account for the client's debt deductions, as the literal wording of the law only captures the lessor's initial benefit.
Therefore, in the event of a dispute, you should always request documents from the lessor confirming the buyer of the repossessed car and fight in court to verify the market nature of this transaction.