Recently, the People's Court of Qingxian County, Hebei Province, concluded a case of vehicle sales contract, heard and ruled that the seller Shi, who had no right to dispose, would return the purchase price of 47500 yuan to the buyer Zhang. Zhang, from Qingxian County, Hebei Province, wanted to buy a second-hand car. After being introduced by a friend, he contacted Shi and bought a Dongfeng Nissan small car from Shi. The purchase price was 47500 yuan. Shi said that the vehicle was a legally obtained mortgage vehicle and guaranteed the ownership of the vehicle. After the two parties reached an agreement, Zhang paid 47500 yuan for the car purchase to Shi on WeChat in November 2019. After collecting money, Shi will deliver the vehicle license, vehicle mortgage agreement and other procedures to Zhang. In April 2021, the staff of Suining County Public Security Bureau of Jiangsu Province found Zhang and said that the vehicle was stolen goods involved in the case, so they detained the vehicle. Zhang believed that Shi's behavior violated the principle of good faith and caused great economic losses to himself. In order to safeguard his legitimate rights and interests according to law, he filed a lawsuit in the Qingxian County Court. After the trial, the court held that Shi, as the payee of the car purchase price and also the vehicle seller, was the counterpart of the vehicle sales contract and should bear corresponding contractual obligations. The vehicle mortgage agreement of the outsider Li submitted by the plaintiff Zhang Mou and the loan receipt, vehicle pledge agreement and Jiangsu second-hand car sales contract of the outsider Hu Mou were unilateral agreements, and the authenticity of the contract could not be confirmed, nor could the authenticity of the vehicle mortgage facts be proved. The registered owner of the vehicle involved is Hu, and the defendant Shi is the person without the right to dispose of the vehicle involved. The oral vehicle sales contract between the plaintiff Zhang and the defendant Shi was detained because the vehicle involved in the case was involved in the crime of fraud, so that the purpose of the contract could not be realized. Now the plaintiff Zhang Mou asked the defendant Shi Mou to return the car purchase price, which is not improper and should be supported. According to the provisions of Articles 563, 566 and 577 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the defendant Shi was sentenced to return the plaintiff Zhang's car purchase price of 47500 yuan. At present, the case has entered into force. ■ The judge reminded ■ Most of the mortgaged cars are the ones that were exiled due to economic disputes. Although the price is low, the risk is high and the mortgage car trading platform cannot guarantee whether the source of the mortgage car is normal. If the source of the mortgaged vehicle is irregular or the vehicle is stolen, the actual interests of the owner will be affected. Not only will the vehicle be confiscated, but also some criminal responsibilities may be borne. (Xinhua News Agency)