After wandering through multiple second-hand car markets and seeing multiple cars, Mr. Zhang, who lives in Shanghai, signed a car purchase contract with a second-hand car company and bought a second-hand car for 164000 yuan. The company guarantees that the vehicle has no accidents, no water damage, and no fire. So, both parties signed a car purchase contract, and Mr. Zhang purchased the car in the form of credit card installment payments and completed the transfer procedures. Mr. Zhang has been taking good care of his car for over a year now. However, during a car maintenance, a piece of news left Mr. Zhang very distressed. Originally, this car had a traffic accident, and although the car was not damaged in the accident, it resulted in one death. Mr. Zhang felt that he had been misled by a used car company, so he sought an explanation from them. But the other party used the contract to argue that the car did not have any major accidents, and they acted according to the contract. Mr. Zhang then sued the company to the court, claiming to cancel the car purchase contract on the grounds of significant misunderstanding, and the company to refund the price and compensate for the losses. Mr. Zhang believes that the case involves a major accident involving a used car that resulted in death. Even if the vehicle's performance was not substantially damaged, according to the general public's perception, the value and circulation of the vehicle have been severely reduced, directly affecting the buyer's willingness to purchase. There is a significant misunderstanding about the true situation of the vehicle involved in the case, and the contract between the two parties should be revoked. The purchase of the vehicle involved in the case is based on the company's significant fault, and the company is required to compensate for the losses caused by the purchase of the vehicle involved in the case. The company argues that it was not aware of the fatal traffic accident that occurred when selling the vehicle involved in the case. The vehicle can be used normally without any quality issues and does not agree to revoke it. After trial, the court believes that according to relevant provisions of the Civil Code, the perpetrator has the right to request the people's court or arbitration institution to revoke civil legal acts based on significant misunderstandings. When the company signed the contract, it promised that the vehicle involved in the case would be "accident free". 'No accidents' should be interpreted as the absence of structural component damage to the vehicle that affects normal use and basic safety performance. The vehicle involved in the case had a fatal traffic accident, and the vehicle itself did not suffer any damage due to the accident, so it does not strictly belong to the "accident vehicle". However, the accident does have an impact on the value of the vehicle. Although the company did not intentionally conceal facts, it did not conduct a comprehensive verification of the vehicles and did not fulfill its obligation to carefully review them. Based on this, incomplete vehicle information was formed, which is an important reason for Mr. Zhang's purchase behavior. From the perspective of consumers, the fact that the aforementioned traffic accidents have resulted in fatalities differs greatly from Mr. Zhang's perception of vehicles as' accident free '. And this fact is sufficient to have a significant impact on the value of the vehicle and Mr. Zhang's purchasing decision. Therefore, Mr. Zhang's act of signing the contract constitutes a significant misunderstanding. In the end, the court ruled to revoke the car purchase contract; The company refunded Mr. Zhang the purchase price of 164000 yuan and processed the vehicle change registration procedures. (New Society)