Core Points - A consumer in Nanjing, Mr. Lin, purchased a new car for a total price of 215,900 yuan but discovered it had over 350 charging records, raising concerns about whether it was a new vehicle or a display model [1][2][5] - The dealership claimed the charging records were due to issues with the charging gun or unstable voltage during pre-delivery charging, asserting that the vehicle was in good condition [1][11] - Mr. Lin expressed dissatisfaction with the dealership's request for a confidentiality agreement during negotiations, stating it was unreasonable to restrict discussions about the issue [1][16] Group 1 - Mr. Lin confirmed multiple inquiries about the vehicle's status as a display model were met with denials from the dealership [2][5] - The dealership's explanation for the charging records involved using a portable charger due to a malfunctioning charging station, which Mr. Lin found unconvincing [5][11] - The dealership was unable to provide video evidence from the showroom during the time the vehicle was allegedly charged [7][8] Group 2 - Mr. Lin noted that the vehicle's battery health was reported at 99%, which he was told was due to inactivity, but he now questions the accuracy of this assessment [12][13] - The dealership's sales manager stated that the vehicle met factory standards upon delivery, but Mr. Lin felt his right to information was violated [15][12] - Mr. Lin proposed two potential resolutions: a full refund with compensation for insurance costs or a partial refund of approximately 20% of the vehicle price, but the dealership's confidentiality demands complicated negotiations [16][1]