During the trial, the president of the court asked the two people involved to contradict the arguments that the expert had just presented.
The dealer simply stated that this was a false argument, because he believed that the car was worth what he had sold it for and that he was willing to buy it back at that price within a week. The president made him repeat himself so that his answer would be noted by the clerk. This was the case.
The day after the trial, May 23, 2019, I asked the dealer to respect his commitment. He refused, arguing that he did not have the necessary sum at his disposal.
I then made him the following proposal:
“Since you are convinced that the car is worth the amount you sold it for, let’s put it up for auction. If it sells for more than the agreed amount, the surplus will be yours. If it doesn’t, you make up the difference.
And I added: “I leave you the choice of the auction company”.
The answer was not long in coming: “I have never trusted auctions”.
…
Bottom line:
A beautiful promise hand on heart in court.
A denial 24 hours later.
A refusal to bend to the most elementary logic.
And that was it.
Even the court of summary proceedings dismissed us.
