Dubai: The owner of a distinctive license plate relied on mutual trust between him and another person, who agreed to buy it for Dh35 million. He received only Dh10 million from the buyer before officially relinquishing ownership.
However, according to the seller, the buyer did not commit to paying the rest of the agreed amount, which prompted him to file a lawsuit before the Dubai Civil Court, demanding payment of Dh25 million. However, the court rejected the lawsuit after the plaintiff failed to provide written evidence proving that the two parties agreed on the value he demanded.
In detail, a Gulf man filed a lawsuit demanding the annulment of an oral agreement to sell a distinctive license plate, and its return to his ownership free of any encumbrance or third-party rights, or obligating the buyer, as a precaution, to pay Dh25 million, which he said represented the remainder of the agreed price.
The plaintiff stated that the agreement was to sell the license plate for Dh35 million, and in light of the mutual trust between them, he agreed that the buyer would pay only Dh10 million by cheque. Then the ownership of the license plate was transferred to his name with the licensing authorities.
However, according to his account, the buyer did not pay the rest of the amount despite his amicable demand for it, which prompted him to resort to the judiciary, demanding either the return of the license plate or the receipt of the rest of the price.
For its part, the court examined the documents submitted by the plaintiff, which included proof of his previous ownership of the distinctive number, and then the transfer of its ownership to the defendant, in addition to a copy of the check issued for the value of Dh10 million.
It concluded that these documents prove the sale and transfer of ownership, and also prove that the buyer issued a check for the stated value, but they do not prove that the total price of the transaction is Dh35 million, or that there is an additional obligation on the buyer of Dh25 million.
The court explained that the dispute is not about simply proving that the sale took place, but rather about determining the price agreed upon by the two parties, which the plaintiff must prove. It pointed out that the transfer of ownership of the number to the buyer is not, in itself, sufficient to prove the value claimed by the seller, and that the cheque presented proves the amount stated in it, but it does not alone prove the existence of an agreement on a larger total price or an obligation to pay the remainder of the amount claimed.
The court based its decision on the provisions of the Civil Transactions Law, which stipulates that a contract is formed by linking offer and acceptance and the agreement of the will of the two parties, and that a sale is an exchange of non-monetary money for monetary money, and the buyer is obligated to pay the price according to what the two parties have agreed upon.
However, the court affirmed, in applying the rules of evidence, that whoever claims a financial right must prove it, and that the original state is innocence, while being preoccupied with debt is something that requires evidence. If the creditor proves the obligation, the burden is transferred to the debtor to prove its fulfilment or disposal. But before proving the obligation for the claimed amount, the defendant is not obligated to prove payment of a debt that was not originally proven in the manner claimed.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s request to prove the verbal agreement and the value of the transaction through the testimony of two witnesses, based on Article 66 of the Evidence Law, which requires that transactions exceeding Dh50,000 be proven in writing, unless there is an agreement or text that permits otherwise. Article 67/3 also stipulates that proof by witness testimony is not permissible if what is required to be proven is the remainder or part of a right that may only be proven in writing.
The court considered that the claim for the remainder of the price of the distinctive number, amounting to Dh25 million, falls within this case, since the plaintiff is not only demanding proof of the fact of the sale, but is also seeking to prove an additional financial obligation that far exceeds the limit set for proof by testimony. Therefore, it was not permissible to replace written evidence with witness testimony to prove this amount.