No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Consequences of Premature Self-Cure: The Lawless Buyer? – A Critical Review of Bundesgerichtshof's Decision of 23 February 2005
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
More than three and a half years ago, the German law of obligations, codified in the second of the five books of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB), underwent its greatest reform since the BGB was enacted on 1 January 1900. The Act to Modernize the Law of Obligations, the Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz, which came into force on 1 January 2002, dramatically altered the law of obligations. Whereas legal practitioners had almost no time to adapt to the new provisions, at least the German courts were granted a grace period. Nevertheless, by now the first cases involving the modernized law have reached the benches of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH – Federal Court of Justice).
This article deals with “one of the currently most controversially discussed questions” of the law of obligations: Whether a buyer, who cures a product's defect can claim reimbursement for the associated expenses (Aufwendungen) from the seller, without giving the seller an additional period of time for supplementary performance (Nacherfüllung). This manner of bringing the product into conformity with the contract can be described as a premature self-cure (verfrühte Selbstvornahme).
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2006 by German Law Journal GbR
References
1 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [BGB] [Civil Code] Jan. 2, 2002 Bundesgesetzblat [BGBl] BGBl. I at 42, as amended [hereinafter BGB].Google Scholar
2 Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz [The Act to Modernize the Law of Obligations], Nov. 26, 2001, BGBl. I at 3138 [hereinafter the Reform Act], available at http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/BGB.htm.Google Scholar
3 BGB §§ 241 et seq.Google Scholar
4 Contrary to the 1900 version of the BGB, which was announced four years before it came into force, the new version of the BGB containing the Reform Act was announced on 2 January 2002 in the Bundesgesetzblatt one day after the Reform Act entered into force. See Peter Schlechtriem, The German Act to Modernize the Law of Obligations in the Context of Common Principles and Structures of the Law of Obligations in Europe, in Oxford University Comparative Law Forum, at article 2 (2002), available at http://ouclf.iuscomp.org/articles/schlechtriem2.shtml.Google Scholar
5 Particularly for that reason, the legislative procedure of the Reform Act was accompanied by an unprecedented severe backlash from law professors. Some 250 of them took part in a petition opposing the Reform Act. Despite that fact, and due to political ambitions, the then German Minister of Justice, Herta Däubler-Gmelin, pushed the legislative procedure with incredible speed. The Minister of Justice was driven by the desire to combine a complete revision of the law of obligations with the domestication of several EC Directives. Among these directives was the directive on Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees, which had to be domesticated by 1 January 2002. See Council Directive 99/44, art. 11, 1999 O.J. (L 171) 12 (EC) [hereinafter the Consumer Sales Directive]. Other EU Member States still have not implemented the Consumer Sales Directive into their national laws. An overview on the current status is available at http://www.ipr.uni-koeln.de/eurprivr/umsetzung1999_44.htm.Google Scholar
6 See Keil, , Kurzkommentar - BGH 23.02.2005 – VIII ZR 100/04, 1 Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht (EWiR) 497 (2005) (determining June 2004 as the starting volley).Google Scholar
7 Tonner, Martin & Wiese, Volker, Selbstvornahme der Mängelbeseitigung durch den Käufer, Betriebsberater 903 (2005). See Keil, supra note 6; Mankowski, Kurzkommentar, AG Kempen 18.08.2003 – 11 C 225/02, 7 Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht (EWiR) 325, 326 (2004) (“one of the most thrilling disputes of the Reform Act”).Google Scholar
8 Strictly speaking, German sales law refers to a Sache – a “thing” – which encompasses any tangible items. BGB §90. Even though this term differs from the term (consumer) good, which is defined by art, 1 (2) lit b Consumer Sales Directive, as any tangible movable items (with exceptions), the term thing – Sache – and good – Gut – are used interchangeably within this paper; See Jürgen Kohler, Property Law (Sachenrecht), in Introduction to German Law 227 (Reimann & Zekoll eds., 2d ed. 2005).Google Scholar
9 For the purpose of this paper, the terms “expenditures,” “expenses” and “costs” are used interchangeably.Google Scholar
10 See Zumbansen, Peer, Contract Law, in Introduction to German law, supra note 8, at 198 (“additional performance”).Google Scholar
11 See Lorenz, Stephan, Selbstvornahme der Mängelbeseitigung im Kaufrecht, 56 Neue Juristische Wochenzeitschrift (NJW) 1417, 1418 (2003); see also Ulrich Schroeter, Kostenerstattungsanspruch des Käufers nach eigenmächtiger Selbstvornahme der Mängelbeseitigung?, 58 Juristische Rundschau (JR) 441 (2004) (“arbitrary” (eigenmächtig)); Peter Bydlinski, Die Konsequenzen voreiliger Selbstverbesserung, entwickelt aus den zentralen gesetzlichen Wertungen, 3 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Schuldrecht (ZGS) 129 (2005) (“overhasty self-improvement” (voreilige Selbstverbesserung)).Google Scholar
12 For an overview, see Zumbansen, supra note 8, at 197.Google Scholar
13 Including B2B, C2C, and B2C sales.Google Scholar
14 Which usually takes place when the thing is handed over to the buyer. BGB § 446.Google Scholar
15 See Lorenz, , supra note 11, at 1417. See also United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, art. 47 (1), April 11, 1980, 658 UNTS 163 [hereinafter CISG] (“[t]he buyer may fix an additional period of time of reasonable length for performance by the seller of his obligations.”)Google Scholar
16 Particularly, the buyer can not claim damages in the event of the delivery of a defective good if the seller is neither liable for the defect – which will often be the case when he is not the manufacturer of the good – nor in default of his primary obligation according to BGB §433. See Ina Ebert, Das Recht des Verkäufers zur zweiten Andienung und seine Risiken für den Käufer, 57 Neue Juristische Wochenzeitschrift (NJW) 1761 (2004). Contrary to art. 39 (1) of the CISG, under the BGB the buyer does not lose his rights if he does not give the seller prompt notice about non-conformity. A provision comparable to art. 39 of the CISG is the German Handelsgesetzbuch [HGB] [Commercial Code] § 377, available at http://dejure.org/gesetze/HGB. This provision, however, is only applicable in business to business sales.Google Scholar
17 Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 58 (2005), 1348, available at http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/entscheidungen/entscheidungen.php.Google Scholar
18 So called Zweckerreichung.Google Scholar
19 BGB § 275 (1). The predominate view generally regards Zweckerreichung as a sub-category of impossibility. See Beate Gsell, Rechtsgrundlosigkeit des Käufers bei voreiliger Selbstvornahme der Mängelbeseitigung, 26 Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht und Insolvenzpraxis (ZIP) 922, 923 (2005). For more on the dispute over the legal consequence of the buyer's cure of the defect is discussed, see infra Part D. II.Google Scholar
20 See Lorenz, , supra note 11, at 1418; Ernst, § 281 BGB, in Münchener Kommentar margin note 60 (Kurt Rebmann, Franz Jürgen Säcker, Roland Rixecker eds., 4TH ed. 2003/2004).Google Scholar
21 BGB §§ 437 n 2, 323, 326 (5).Google Scholar
22 BGB § 326 (5). The term “qualitative impossibility” (“qualitative Unmöglichkeit“) was introduced by the Reform Act because the new BGB § 433 (1) 2 lifted the obligation to procure the thing in a state free from defects to the rank of a primary obligation of the seller. See Lorenz, supra note 11, at 1417; see also Lorenz, Rücktritt, Minderung und Schadensersatz wegen Sachmängeln im neuen Kaufrecht: Was hat der Verkäufer zu vertreten?, 55 Neue Juristische Wochenzeitschrift (NJW) 2497 (2002). For the legal fate of the supplementary performance, see infra, Part C. III.Google Scholar
23 This obvious result was astonishingly overlooked by the Bundesgerichtshof, see infra, B. II. 1. See also Amtsgericht Daun, 21 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift – Rechtsprechung Report (NJW-RR), 1465 (2003), available at http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~Lorenz/urteile/agdaun3c664_02.htm; and Amtsgericht Kempen, 10 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Schuldrecht (ZGS), 397 (2003), available at http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~Lorenz/urteile/agkempen11c225.htm; Lorenz, supra note 11, at 1417; Tonner & Wiese, supra note 7, at 906.Google Scholar
24 Moreover, since F bought a new car, the defect would also result in a reduced market value (merkantiler Minderwert).Google Scholar
25 BGB § 326 (1) 1, 1st main-clause.Google Scholar
26 BGB § 326 (1) 2.Google Scholar
27 See Lorenz, , supra note 11, at 1418.Google Scholar
28 For the former Professor Lorenz can be regarded as the founder, for the latter Professor Dauner-Lieb and the members of her chair. See Barbara Dauner-Lieb & Wolfgang Dötsch, § 326 II 2 (analog) bei der Selbstvornahme, 5 Neue Zeitschrift für Baurecht (NZBau) 233 (2004); Dauner-Lieb & Wolfgang Dötsch, Selbstvornahme im Kaufrecht?, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Schuldrecht (ZGS) 250 (2003); Dauner-Lieb & Wolfgang Dötsch, Nochmals: Selbstvornahme im Kaufrecht?, ZGS 455 (2003); Dauner-Lieb & Arnd Arnold, Dauerthema Selbstvornahme, ZGS 10 (2005); Wolfgang Dötsch, Rechte des Käufers nach eigenmächtiger Mangelbeseitigung, 17 Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht (MDR) 975 (2004).Google Scholar
29 Amtsgericht Daun, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift – Rechtsprechung Report (NJW-RR), 21 (2003), 1465, available at http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~Lorenz/urteile/agdaun3c664_02.htm (sale of a used Volkswagen Golf); Amtsgericht Kempen, 10 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Schuldrecht (ZGS), 397 (2003), available at http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~Lorenz/urteile/agkempen11c225.htm (sale of a used GPS-navigation system); Landgericht Aachen, verdict of 23 October 2003 (6 S 99/03), available at http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~Lorenz/urteile/lgaachen6s99_03.htm (sale of a used Peugeot 106); Landgericht Gießen, 6 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Schuldrecht (ZGS) (2004), 238, available at http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~Lorenz/urteile/zgs04_238.htm (sale of a used Sear Arosa). For the only contrary decision, see Landgericht Bielefeld, 2 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Schuldrecht (ZGS), (2005), 79 (sale of a puppy).Google Scholar
30 The Court's future decision was indicated by an article, published almost a year earlier by Judge Wolfgang Ball of the Bundesgerichtshof's 8th civil senate - the senate generally competent for sales law. See Wolfgang Ball, Die Nacherfüllung beim Autokauf, 14 Neue Zeitschrift für Verkehrsrecht (NZV) 217 (2004).Google Scholar
31 Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 58 (2005), 1348, available at http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/entscheidungen/entscheidungen.php. See Tonner & Wiese, supra note 7, at 903 (Tonner agreeing with and Wiese rejecting the decision).Google Scholar
32 BGH, id.Google Scholar
33 BGB § 536a (2) (tenants); BGB §§ 634 n2 & 637 (work contracts).Google Scholar
34 Therefore, an unintended gap in the law, a prerequisite for the analogous application of BGB § 326 (2) 2, does not exist.Google Scholar
35 Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 58 (2005), 1348, 1350, available at http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/entscheidungen/entscheidungen.php.Google Scholar
36 Id.Google Scholar
37 Id.Google Scholar
38 Id.Google Scholar
39 Lorenz, , supra note 11, at 1417; Lorenz, supra note 20, at 398; Lorenz, Voreilige Selbstvornahme der Nacherfüllung im Kaufrecht: Der BGH hat gesprochen und nichts ist geklärt, 19 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1321 (2005); Lorenz, Schuldrechtsreform 2002: Problemschwerpunkte drei Jahre danach, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1889, 1895 (2005); Mathias Katzenstein, Kostenersatz bei eigenmächtiger Selbstvornahme der Mängelbeseitigung nach § 326 Abs. 2 Satz 2 BGB, 4 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Schuldrecht (ZGS) 144 (2004); Katzenstein, Nochmals: Ersatz ersparter Aufwendungen bei eigenmächtiger Selbstvornahme der Mängelbeseitigung, 9 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Schuldrecht (ZGS) 349 (2004); Bydlinski, supra note 11, at 129 (also summarizing the Austrian law on this issue); Gsell, supra note 19, at 922; Ebert, supra note 16, at 1761; Jürgen Oechsler, Kein Ersatz ersparter Verkäuferaufwendungen im Falle der eigenmächtigen Mangelbeseitigung durch den Käufer, 6 Kommentierte BGH-Rechtsprechung Lindenmaier-Möhring (LMK) 81 (2005); Carsten Herresthal & Thomas Rhiem, Die eigenmächtige Selbstvornahme im allgemeinen und besonderen Leistungsstörungsrecht, 21 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1457 (2005); Florian Faust, § 437, in Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Kommentar) margin note 33 (Bamberger/Roth eds., 2005); Florian Faust, § 439, in Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Kommentar) margin note 56 (Bamberger/Roth eds., 2005); Wolfgang Voit, § 637, in Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Kommentar) margin note 17 (Bamberger/Roth eds., 2005) (for work contracts); Palandt/ Heinrichs, § 326, in Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Kommentar) margin note 13 (Palandt ed., 64th ed. 2005); Palandt/Putzo, § 437, in Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Kommentar) margin note 4a (Palandt ed., 64th ed. 2005); Ernst, in Münchener Kommentar, supra note 20, at § 281 marginal note 60.Google Scholar
40 Nichtberechtigte Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag. See Peter Hay, From Rule-Orientation to “Approach” in German Conflicts Law – the Effect of the 1986 and 1999 Codifications, 47 Am. J. Comp. L. 633, 644 (1999)(“The concept of ‘agency without mandate’ has no exact counterpart in American law. Negotiorum gestio, of Roman law origin, covers a number of instances in which one person […] performs the obligation of another or performs a task for the other without having received a mandate or request to do so.”).Google Scholar
41 Katzenstein, , supra note 39, at 351.Google Scholar
42 Oechsler, , supra note 39, at 81 (“an undeserved stroke of luck”). See Herresthal & Rhiem, supra note 39, at 1457 (“a gift for the debtor”).Google Scholar
43 Recht der zweiten Andienung. Compare with CISG art. 37 and 48 (providing for a similar seller's “right to cure”).Google Scholar
44 Bydlinski, , supra note 11, at 130.Google Scholar
45 Oechsler, , supra note 39, at 81. Distinguishing between internal and external costs, see Herresthal & Rhiem, supra note 39, at 1458.Google Scholar
46 BGB § 267 (1) provides that a third person can also perform without the creditor's consent, unless the debtor has to provide in persona.Google Scholar
47 Oechsler, , supra note 39, at 81. See Herresthal & Rhiem, supra note 39, at 1458.Google Scholar
48 Oechsler, , id.Google Scholar
49 Id. Herresthal, & Rhiem, , supra note 39, at 1458; Katzenstein, supra note 39, at 354.Google Scholar
50 See infra Part C. I.Google Scholar
51 See infra Part C. II- IV.Google Scholar
52 See infra Part C. V.Google Scholar
53 See infra Part C. I 1.Google Scholar
54 See infra Part C. I 2.Google Scholar
55 Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 58 (2005), 1348, 1349, available at http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/entscheidungen/entscheidungen.php.Google Scholar
56 A commercial agent is defined as an independent tradesman who is permanently commissioned to broker deals for another businessman or to conclude deals in his name, HGB § 84 (1) 1. Although not evidenced by the facts told by the Bundesgerichtshof, it is probable that the car dealer did not only independently act as the seller's agent with respect to the buyer's sales contract, but also with regard to other sales contracts. The following comments are based on these assumptions.Google Scholar
57 HGB.Google Scholar
58 Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 58 (2005), 1348, 1349, available at http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/entscheidungen/entscheidungen.php.Google Scholar
59 Id.Google Scholar
60 Moreover, it is also illegitimate to draw conclusions from the buyer's preceding behavior for the question of whether he himself limited his claims to those arising from the guarantee agreement because this behavior resulted from H's refusal, as the Court apparently did, too.Google Scholar
61 See supra note 56.Google Scholar
62 Wolfgang Ernst & Beate Gsell, Kaufrechtsrichtlinie und BGB, 21 Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht und Insolvenzpraxis (ZIP) 1410, 1418 (2000). In contrast to CISG art. 38-39, the Directive regrettably does not obligate the consumer to inspect the good and to notify the seller within a reasonable time.Google Scholar
63 Faust, , § 437, supra note 39, at margin note 17; Lorenz, § 474, in Münchener Kommentar margin note 20 (Kurt Rebmann, Franz Jürgen Säcker, Roland Rixecker eds., 4TH ed. 2003/2004); Lorenz, supra note 39, at 1894; Ernst & Gsell, supra note 62, at 1418; Dauner-Lieb, § 323, in AnwaltKommentar, margin note 20 (Dauner-Lieb & Heidel eds., 2001).Google Scholar
64 BTDrucks 14/6040, 221 et seq. (“Even if [§ 323 (1) BGB] might not be regarded as sufficient for the implementation of the Consumer Sales Directive, § 440 is to be taken into consideration, which provides for exceptions for the prerequisite to fix a period of time”). See Faust, § 437, supra note 39, at margin note 17.Google Scholar
65 BGB § 440 provides: “[I]t is not necessary to fix a period of time if […] the form of supplementary performance to which the buyer is entitled has failed or would be unreasonable for him [….]”Google Scholar
66 BTDrucks 14/6040, 222.Google Scholar
67 Faust, , § 437, supra note 39, at margin note 18; Lorenz, supra note 63; Lorenz, supra note 39, at 1894.Google Scholar
68 Germany used the implementation of the Consumer Sales Directive to fundamentally change the whole system of the law of obligations. As a result, the sale of a good from a seller to a consumer forms now the basic model for a BGB sales contract. Whether this new standard model is favorable is questionable since it does now presuppose an inequality of the parties’ powers whereas the traditional understanding of the BGB assumed that the bargaining parties of a contract are equal in power.Google Scholar
69 Still, it may not be concealed in this context that the other approach also bears a systematical advantage. Unlike BGB § 323 (2) no. 3, BGB § 440 also waives the time fixing prerequisite for a compensation claim, even though such a betterment of the buyer is not indicated by the Consumer Sales directive since the Directive does not grant the buyer a right of compensation. Yet, facing these two systematical problems, the lesser evil seems the positioning of a solution in § 440.Google Scholar
70 See Palandt, /Putzo, , supra note 39, at margin note 59.Google Scholar
71 Due to the “high-speed” legislative process of the Reform Act, see supra note 4, a consumer had and still has very little knowledge about his rights according to the modernized sales law. Moreover, the priority of the right to claim supplementary performance is “well hidden in the law.” See Bydlinski, supra note 11, at 130.Google Scholar
72 It must be stressed that this argument is far from pretending that repair shops are not reliable.Google Scholar
73 Contra Bydlinski, , supra note 11, at 131.Google Scholar
74 Gsell is, thus, correct in advocating a cautious use of the seller's secondary burden of proof. Gsell, supra note 19, at 927.Google Scholar
75 Imagine, for example, the Landgericht Bielefeld's case, supra note 29, where it would be the veterinarian to give oral testimony.Google Scholar
76 Gsell, , supra note 19, at 926.Google Scholar
77 This argument was conceded by Oechsler, supra note 39, at 82.Google Scholar
78 Bydlinski, , supra note 11, at 131.Google Scholar
79 Tonner, & Wiese, , supra note 7, at 906.Google Scholar
80 BGB § 362 (1). See Keil, supra note 6, at 497. Tonner and Wiese, however, admit that their result is “strange”. Tonner & Wiese, supra note 7, at 906.Google Scholar
81 Katzenstein errs in his assumption that the cure of a defect by the buyer leads to a “qualitative partial impossibility.” Katzenstein, supra note 39, at 355. A partial impossibility would require by definition that performance is also partially possible which is obviously incorrect because performance and supplementary performance are insofar intrinsically tied to each other. Gsell is unclear in advocating an “analogous application of the principles of impossibility.” Gsell, supra note 19, at 923.Google Scholar
82 Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 58 (2005), 1348, 1349, available at http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/entscheidungen/entscheidungen.php (citing Jürgen Oechsler, Praktische Anwendungsprobleme des Nacherfüllungsanspruchs, 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1825, 1826 (2004); Grunewald, § 437, in BGB Kommentar at margin number 3 (Walter Erman, harm p. westermann, eds., 11 ed., 2004) and Ulrich Schroeter, Kostenerstattungsanspruch des Käufers nach eigenmächtiger Selbstvornahme der Mängelbeseitigung?, 58 Juristische Rundschau (JR) 441, 442 (2004)). Compare, supra, C. I. 2.Google Scholar
83 But see Keil, , supra note 6, at 497.Google Scholar
84 A different evaluation does also not result with view to BGB § 323 (4), which provides that a creditor may rescind from the contract before performance becomes due if it is obvious that the preconditions for rescission will be satisfied, since this rule only reschedules the relevant point of time for invoking the secondary right of rescission to an earlier but not to a later date. Contra Landgericht Bielefeld, supra note 29, at 80.Google Scholar
85 Gsell admits as much. Gsell, supra note 19, at 923.Google Scholar
86 Gsell's proposal that the principles of impossibility should be applied on the premature self-cure only by way of analogy, since it would not constitute a case of “real” impossibility is unclear. Id.Google Scholar
87 See Florian Schulz, Der Ersatzlieferungs- und Nachbesserungsanspruch des Käufers im internen deutschen Recht, im UCC und im CISG (2002).Google Scholar
88 See Oberlandesgericht Braunschweig [BraOLGZ] [Court of Appeals for Braunschweig], Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 56 (2003), 1053 (with further references).Google Scholar
89 Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 58 (2005), 1348, 1360, available at http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/entscheidungen/entscheidungen.php (the Court argues, the seller's possibilities of defense would be unjustifiably weakened).Google Scholar
90 The seller is protected by this defense since the buyer has the right to choose between the two kinds of supplementary performance – repair or replacement. If, for example, the object sold is a brand-new mass product and generally both potential kinds of supplementary performance would be available, the replacement of the good will be often less expensive.Google Scholar
91 See infra, Part C. IV. 1.Google Scholar
92 See infra, Part C. IV. 2.Google Scholar
93 See infra, Part C. IV. 3.Google Scholar
94 See infra, Part C. IV. 4.Google Scholar
95 Legitimate agency-without-mandate.Google Scholar
96 Illegitimate agency-without-mandate.Google Scholar
97 Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 58 (2005), 1348, 1349, available at http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/entscheidungen/entscheidungen.php.Google Scholar
98 BGB §§ 683, 670.Google Scholar
99 BGB § 683.Google Scholar
100 Bydlinski, , supra note 11, at 131; contra Oechsler, supra note 82, at 1826 (stating that such an intent would normally exist).Google Scholar
101 See Palandt, /Putzo, , § 677, supra note 39, at margin note 11.Google Scholar
102 Oechsler overlooks this. Oechsler, supra note 39, at 81; see, supra, Part B. II. 2.Google Scholar
103 BGB §§ 823-853. The rules on delict in combination with §§ 249-304 are comparable with torts.Google Scholar
104 For example, courts applied BGB §§ 677-687, in which a void contract “existed” to circumvent BGB §§ 812—22; See Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 50 (1997), 47, 48. However, it must be conceded that in the Landgericht Bielefeld's case the court, by way of reference to BGB § 684, applied the rules on unjust enrichment.Google Scholar
105 Landgericht Bielefeld, 2 Zeitschrift für das gesamte Schuldrecht (ZGS), 79 (2005).Google Scholar
106 Furthermore, the Landgericht Bielefeld's reasoning that the veterinarian's commission by the buyer to heal the puppy was “without mandate” of the seller - notwithstanding the existing sales contract - since § 684 would not open a law on breach of contracts alternative to BGB § 437, is unconvincing as it comes close to a petitio principii: the application of BGB § 684 requires a “true” agency-without-mandate pursuant to BGB § 677, which in turn necessitates a person to perform intentionally an obligation of another without having received a mandate. Provided that an illegitimate agency without mandate exists, BGB §§ 684, 818-22 govern the agent's right to claim reimbursement of his expenses. Yet, the Landgericht Bielefeld assumed the application of BGB § 684 to reason why the requirements of BGB § 677 are met.Google Scholar
107 Contra Katzenstein, supra note 39, at 351.Google Scholar
108 BTDrucks 14/6040, 229.Google Scholar
109 It is not surprising that now advocates the direct applicability of BGB § 326 II 2 and thereby avoids the necessity to show the requirements of an analogy. Lorenz, supra note 20, at 398. See Herresthal & Rhiem, supra note 39, at 1460 at footnote 55.Google Scholar
110 Contra Herresthal & Rhiem, supra note 39, at 1458.Google Scholar
111 See, supra, Part C. III.Google Scholar
112 Lorenz, , supra note 11, at 1419; Ebert, supra note 16, at 1763; see Gsell, supra note 19, at 925.Google Scholar
113 Ebert, , supra note 16, at 1763.Google Scholar
114 Gsell, , supra note 19, at 925.Google Scholar
115 Dauner-Lieb & Dötsch, , supra note 28, at 458. In this context, the relative weakness of any wording argument must be born in mind, because the terminology of BGB § 326 can only be described as a legislator's failure, in particular if one compares the miscarried language of BGB § 326 (1) 1 and (5). Seemingly, both have the same prerequisites – the debtor is released from his obligation perform because of impossibility - but lead to different legal consequences – an ipso iure lapse of the counter-performance vis-à-vis a ius variandi to rescind from the contract or to demand price reduction. Only a closer look at BGB § 326 (1) 2 and a view at the legislative history reveals, that BGB § 326 (1) 1 governs “real”, whereas BGB § 326 (5) governs the “qualitative” impossibility. While BGB § 326 (1) 1 of the draft version of the Reform Act was already identical with the later enacted BGB § 326 (1) 1 1st main clause, BGB § 326 (1) 3 draft version granted a creditor's right to rescind in the event of qualitative impossibility. After several proposals to change BGB § 326, this right to rescind was finally moved into BGB § 326 (5). According to the legal committee (Rechtsausschuss) of the Federal Parliament (Bundestag), this spin-off aimed to clarify that BGB §§ 326 (2-4) exclusively deal with the lapse of the obligation to perform consideration, but not with the right of rescission due to qualitative impossibility, BTDrucks 14/7052, 193. Therefore, it is clear that according to the legislator BGB § 326 (2) 2 is not applicable in the event of qualitative impossibility.Google Scholar
116 Katzenstein, , supra note 39, at 148 discusses only the prerequisites of a claim pursuant to BGB § 812 but not its applicability. Compare also Gsell, supra note 19, at 926.Google Scholar
117 Palandt, /Putzo, , supra note 39, at margin note 58; Westermann, § 437, in Münchener Kommentar margin note 64 (Kurt Rebmann, Franz Jürgen Säcker, Roland Rixecker eds ., 4TH ed. 2003/2004).Google Scholar
118 This analysis may not be confused with the search of an unintended gap, since the denial of a gap does not automatically result in a blocking effect of other provisions outside the sales law, see supra Part C. V. 2.Google Scholar
119 Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 58 (2005), 1348, 1349, available at http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/entscheidungen/entscheidungen.php.Google Scholar
120 For example, from the view of either the person who suffered the loss, or the one who received a gain.Google Scholar
121 By examining the suffered loss, tort protects the victim's rights (Integritätsinteresse, literally “interest of integrity”). See BGB §§ 823-53 & §§ 249-92. The principles of unjust enrichment adjust unjust economic displacements by looking at the debtor's gained loss. See BGB §§ 812-22.Google Scholar
122 For example, if the buyer uses his right of rescission, the contract is unwounded pursuant to the rules of rescission, but not through the principles of unjust enrichment. See BGB §§ 346-61.Google Scholar
123 Palandt, /Putzo, , supra note 39, at marginal notes 54 & 58; Westermann, supra note 117, at marginal notes 55 and 64.Google Scholar
124 1989 BGBl. II at 588.Google Scholar
125 Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 58 (2005), 1348, 1350, available at http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/entscheidungen/entscheidungen.php (citing Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 19 (1966), 39, 40).Google Scholar
126 CISG art. 48.Google Scholar
127 Huber, Ulrich, Art. 48, in Peter Schlechtriem, Kommentar zum einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht margin note 28 (CISG 3d ed. 2000); Wilhelm-Albrecht Achilles, Kommentar zum UN-Kaufrechtsübereinkommen art. 48 margin note 6 (CISG 2000); Schulz, supra note 87, at 311; Peter Huber, Art. 48, in Münchener Kommentar margin note 22 (CISG 4TH ed. 2004); Müller-Chen, Art. 48, in Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods margin note 21 (Peter Schlechtriem & Ingeborg Schwenzer eds., CISG 2d ed. 2005).Google Scholar
You have
Access