Woman bought a new car from a dealership for 2.4 million lira, but it turned out to have been damaged

A resident of Yalova, Turkey, lawyer Gizem Gülşen Güneşti, bought a new car for 2 million 385 thousand Turkish lira and decided to have it independently inspected almost immediately after taking delivery. The result was unexpected: specialists found signs that the front hood had been removed and reinstalled, while the thickness of the paint coating on it differed noticeably from the readings on the vehicle’s other body panels.

The buyer is now demanding that the car be replaced with another one — without the disputed features. The dealer, for its part, maintains that the findings do not indicate a manufacturing defect or any other shortcoming in the vehicle.

Why the buyer rejected another car

Güneşti told Milliyet that she had contacted another dealership even before the purchase. There, she was offered a car which, according to the seller, had factory paintwork on the rear fender.

The buyer rejected that option because she wanted a car without such features. According to her, she specifically emphasized to the dealer that she needed a “flawless” vehicle.

She eventually chose another car priced at 2 million 385 thousand lira. By comparison, she had previously been offered a vehicle for 2 million 320 thousand lira — a difference of 65 thousand lira. Güneşti says she was prepared to pay more specifically for a car that she believed fully met her requirements.

The inspection changed the situation

Almost immediately after taking delivery of the car, the buyer took it for an inspection.

In the report she cites, the hood is identified as original, but specialists found signs of what is known as sök-tak — the removal and reinstallation of the part.

In addition, the inspection recorded differences in the thickness of the paint coating. The reading on the hood was approximately 140–160 microns, while on other parts of the vehicle it ranged from 75–90 microns.

The report also mentions signs of work on the hood fasteners and the application of paint around the fastening points.

It is important to stress that these findings alone do not prove that the vehicle was damaged in an accident or underwent body repairs. The inspection identified technical features whose origin has become the subject of a dispute between the buyer and the dealer.

That detail is precisely what makes the case legally more complicated than it may initially appear.

Dealer: this could have happened during transportation

The dealer’s representatives disagreed with the buyer’s interpretation.

According to their version, the marks on the hood fasteners could have appeared as a result of adjustments made during transportation or while the vehicle was being prepared for handover to the customer. Therefore, in the company’s view, the mere fact that the hood was removed and subsequently installed does not in itself mean that there was a manufacturing defect or another legally significant shortcoming.

The dealer also has an argument regarding the paint thickness.

The company refers to official information from the manufacturer, according to which the thickness of the coating on exterior body panels may range from 50 to 300 microns, depending on production standards.

This creates an important technical contradiction: a reading of 140–160 microns is indeed higher than the values on most of the other panels of this particular vehicle, but it is still within the range stated by the manufacturer.

Therefore, the claim that “150 microns on the hood means it was repainted” would be incorrect.

Establishing whether repairs were carried out requires considering the totality of the evidence, not just the readings of a paint-thickness gauge.

What exactly the buyer wants

After receiving the expert report, Güneşti returned the vehicle to the dealer in Bursa and demanded its replacement.

According to her, the dealer’s representatives initially said that they themselves had not known about the identified features. However, the parties failed to reach an agreement.

The buyer says she has two expert reports and a specialist’s opinion which, in her view, confirm the existence of a defect. In addition, the parties went through mediation, but were unable to reach a settlement.

Güneşti now intends to seek replacement of the vehicle with a similar one without the disputed features.

Why even a minor body detail matters to an owner

From a technical standpoint, the vehicle may still be completely sound.

The hood may be original, the vehicle may operate normally, and the readings identified may have no effect on either safety or driving performance.

But for the owner of a new car, there is another factor — its value on the second-hand market.

A used-car buyer usually pays attention to the vehicle’s bodywork history. If an inspection reveals signs that parts have been removed, painted or repaired, this may become grounds for negotiating the price or even refusing to buy the car.

This is exactly what Güneşti is concerned about.

She said she does not want, a year from now, to have to explain to the next owner when selling the car why signs of removal were found on the front hood and why the coating-thickness readings differ from those on the other body panels. According to her, avoiding such problems was one of the reasons she initially decided to buy a new car.

What Turkish law says

In Turkey, relations between a car buyer and seller are regulated, among other things, by Law No. 6502, the Consumer Protection Law.

When there is an ayıplı mal — a defective or non-conforming product — the law grants consumers a number of so-called optional rights. Depending on the circumstances, the buyer may demand that the defect be remedied, request a price reduction, have the product replaced with an equivalent one without the defect, or exercise the right to terminate the contract in cases provided for by law.

But the crucial point is that the existence of such a right must be substantiated in relation to the specific circumstances.

In this case, it will be necessary to establish whether the identified features actually constitute a defect in the vehicle, whether they existed before the car was handed over to the buyer, and to what extent they affect the vehicle’s characteristics and value.

That is why the expert report plays a key role here.

Paint thickness is not, by itself, proof of an accident

The case is particularly illustrative for buyers who check new cars with a paint-thickness gauge.

A reading in microns alone does not automatically reveal the history of a vehicle’s bodywork.

Coating thickness depends on production technology, the type of panel, the number of layers and the specific section of the body. Readings may vary even on the same vehicle.

In this case, it was not only the 140–160 micron reading that attracted attention, but also its combination with signs of work on the hood fasteners. It was the totality of these circumstances that formed the basis for the buyer’s claims.

Therefore, an expert inspection of a vehicle should not answer the simplistic question “where are there more microns?”, but a more complex one: why does a particular panel differ from the others, and are there signs that its condition has been altered?

Yargıtay has already considered a similar dispute

Interestingly, a dispute over painted panels on a new vehicle in Turkey has previously been considered by the Supreme Court of Appeals — Yargıtay.

In another case, a buyer purchased a car with zero mileage and later discovered during an inspection that some body panels had been painted. A local court initially ordered the vehicle to be replaced with an equivalent one without defects.

However, in July 2026, the 3rd Civil Chamber of Yargıtay found that replacing the vehicle was disproportionate to the circumstances of the case. According to the published information, the identified defects did not affect the car’s safety, comfort or ability to be used for its intended purpose, but could have reduced its value on the second-hand market.

The court therefore indicated that the issue of compensation for the loss in value of the vehicle should be considered instead of its complete replacement.

It is important, however, not to conflate the two cases. That Yargıtay decision concerns a different vehicle and a different legal dispute. It does not mean that the current buyer will automatically receive, or be denied, the right to have her car replaced.

Nevertheless, it demonstrates the approach of Turkish case law: if a defect does not affect the vehicle’s safety or operation but reduces its market value, a court may consider monetary compensation instead of full replacement of the car.

How the current dispute may end

There is still no final court decision in the Güneşti case.

On the one hand, the buyer says she deliberately paid more for a car without such features and discovered them almost immediately after taking delivery.

On the other hand, the dealer insists that the identified signs may be connected with transportation and adjustment, while the paint-thickness reading falls within the range established by the manufacturer.

Therefore, the final assessment will depend not on a single paint-thickness reading, but on expert determination of the origin of the identified features and their effect on the vehicle.

The case also highlights an important nuance of the new-car market: “zero mileage” means that the car has not been driven by the buyer, but it is not, by itself, a technical inspection of the bodywork.

When buying an expensive car, it is worth inspecting the vehicle carefully before final acceptance, retaining all documents and recording any statements made by the dealer regarding the vehicle’s condition. If disputed signs are discovered after the purchase, an independent inspection may become one of the key pieces of evidence in a subsequent consumer dispute.

For now, however, it cannot be stated that the buyer was sold a “damaged” or previously repaired vehicle. At present, the only confirmed fact is that the inspection identified certain features of the hood, while the parties offer different explanations for their origin. The final legal assessment of the situation must be made by the relevant authority or court.