Legal information credit card judgments

Rechtsanw?e B?enhoff and colleague - interesting one of judgements the acceptance of a discount (discount deduction)?r a l?eren period is after a pronouncement of judgement of the higher regional court Frankfurt: 24 U 128/99) as tacit agreement, hei?. In the case of judgement?r one period of nearly two years the discount deduction without lasting contradiction had remained. Before the switching of an investment an advisor must inform?r their economy and Seriosit?ausreichend. In the case of a failed plant it can otherwise liable to pay damages. The mediator had a plant recommendation as dead certain and without risk. The investment of funds was anschlie?nd by from it a mediated. After meanwhile strengthened iurisdiction of the BGH (AZ. in which F?en a plant mediator f?unrichtige data clings, applies: In the context of the plant switching an information contract with adhesion sequences comes to conditions if the prospective customer makes clear between the plant prospective customer and the mediator that it to a certain plant decision referred the special knowledge and connections of the mediator to take up wants and the plant mediator the gew?chte T?gkeit. This information contract between the involved ones obligates the mediator to correct and vollst?iger information?r those tats?lichen Umst?e, which are f?den plant resolution of the prospective customer of special importance. in individual cases no objective data forwards or he is informed sufficiently, does not have he this before Durchf?ung of the Anlagegesch?s. Between investors and mediators of an investment an information contract comes to conditions, which commit the mediator to wahrheitsgem?r and to vollst?iger information?r the plant project. Who as plant mediators t?g will, must?r the daf?notwendigen and expected knowledge verf?n or however openly put that it?r these knowledge not verf? and that secured information does not stand for it?r the economic situation of the enterprise to Verf?ng. The duty to supply information of the plant mediator covers that all information is supplied with to the customer m?en, which has f?die respective plant decision substantial meaning or to have. The distribution of a correct and vollst?igen information is. 1 AGBG unzul?ig and thus ineffectively. Pers?ichkeitsrecht covers the power of the particular to decide whether he wants to receive advertisement in his electronic mail box. Sender of E-Mail weaving must assume the owner of an electronic mail box because of the temporal expenditure, which is connected with calling up and L?hen of such Mails grunds?lich. If he ignores this, for the Empf?er a requirement for omission stands against the sender to a phone bill with single connecting proofs is?rh?, it must speak in detail which were not gef?t concrete Gespr?e z. Gr?en of the absence come anyhow to the proof of the first appearance daf?zugute that you are correct the telephone account made by it, if with the technical-operational Vollpr?ng no the Z?er affecting error were determined and after Pr?ng of the Z?ereinrichtung is certain that itself these ordnungsgem?m. A) The telephone network operator and not the Anschlu?nhaber tr? the risk of the secret installation of an automatic a electioneering program (so-called Dialer) into a computer, which average Anschlu?utzer f?den unbemerkbar the connections into the InterNet?r an increase in value service number manufactures, if the Anschlu?utzer represented this not too (right thought of the. the Anschlu?utzer to take precautions against so-called Dialer so long no concrete reference to a Mi?rauch. is not incumbent on 16 exp. b) with secretly installed Dialer (BGH, judgement of 04. The telephone network operator and not the subscriber tr? the risk of the secret installation of an automatic a electioneering program (so-called Dialer) into a computer, which average connection user unbemerkbar the connections f?den into the InterNet?r a Mehrwertdiestenummer manufacture, if the connection user represented this not too (right thought of the. 16 III 3 TKV). the connection user to take precautions against so-called Dialer as long as no concrete reference to an abuse is present spread, usually standardm?g Salvatori clause did not use, after some futile Rechtsgesch? also without the futile clause to be effective is, does not relieve not of after. 139 BGB Pr?ng which can be made whether the parties the part-futile Gesch? as a whole rejected h?en or however the remainder h?en apply. It is important only f?die of. 139 BGB deviating assignment statement and of the burden of proof this meets that, against that the Erhaltungsklausen the contract as whole one f?unwirksam. Adhesion of building firms f?Baum?el (BGH. judgement of 26. with different trades, whose incorrect achievements gef?t to M?eln, those to be only uniformly eliminated k?en. criterion in the acceptance of a totalliable adhesion see the senate in the level solidarity of several enterprises in the context of their Gew?leistungspflicht to m?en together and in its entirety f?die M?el once marriages along-caused by them if only a Sanierungsm?ichkeit is possible. Case is owed comprehensible a uniform success, if with contentwise Gew?leistungspflicht zun?st in requirement taken the entrepreneurs the costs of the reorganization?rlagernden themselves to carry h?e, without to an internal reconciliation justified too. The acceptance of a Gesamtschuldverh?nisses erm?icht it, in the context of the balance requirement after. 426 Abs. 254 BGB to use and thus the respective causing portion of the pre and nachunternehmers become fair other conceivable requirement bases, how they are partly bef?ortet in iurisdiction and literature, it does not require therefore than AGB (Rechtsprechungs?erung of the BGH). each contractual deviation from the VOB/B to the fact that these not as. It does not depend (more) on which weight. The deplored one has that treaty system placed the Verwenderin, to their loads contents control of general ones is a general Gesch?sbedingung, those contents control not standh?, because it the contractor inadequately disadvantages. However the individual regulations of the VOB/B are not subject to contents control after the iurisdiction of the senate for the area of application of the AGB law, if the user the VOB/B without Einschr?ung falling in the weight. This iurisdiction is the basis the Erw?ng that the VOB/B submitted a cheap reconciliation of interests between contents control, then k?te the aimed at reconciliation of interests. The VOB/B was therefore extracted from contents control, if the reconciliation of interests carried out by it were not substantially beeintr?tigt by the contract design (BGH. contents control was er?net, if the contract planned regulations, which intervene in the core range of the VOB/B. From the past senate iurisdiction leave themselves no seizable criteria daf?ableiten, when of the VOB/B deviating regulation. The formulations used by the senate do not have themselves as useful demarcation criterion proven erm?ichen f?den right traffic necessary safe evaluation, to what extent a contractual set of rules is subject to contents control after the AGB law. N?g is however an application of the law, which erm?icht f?die Contracting Parties a verl?liche prognosis. From the past decisions it results that the Federal High Court represents already in the case of relatively geringf?gen deviations an interference into the core range of the VOB/B to right security there abzuschlie?n that grunds?lich each contentwise deviation from the VOB/B as a St?ng of the reconciliation of interests intended of it is to be evaluated w? in the right of the general Gesch?sbedingungen necessary. The VOB/B is therefore only then extracted from contents control after the AGB law, if she were agreed upon as a whole on it on whatever weight the interference has er?net if only geringf?ge contentwise deviations from the VOB/B are present and then also unabh?ig of it whether possibly disadvantaging regulations in the priority treaty system become m?icherweise by other regulations ausgeglichen.. To what extent the iurisdiction of the Federal High Court is applicable to the VOB/B as a whole also to F?e under validity of the law for the modernization of the law of contract, remains openly t?ge association chairmen cling f?nicht abgef?te. The chairman has to erf?en as legal representatives of a legal entity their fiscal obligations. It cannot extract itself also from the adhesion, if it the Erf?ung of the tasks of third?rl?t. several Gesch?sf?er developed Grunds?e f?die M?ichkeit of the delimitation of the responsibility of the legal representative of a legal entity by a distribution of the tasks within the same apply also f?die?ertragung more for taxation. The Federal Finance Court placed with judgement (Az. firmly that the legal representative must itself around the fiscal obligations k?ern if it cause has to doubt the Pflichterf?ung that delegated on the fiscal obligations. A) A pr??ge calculation in the sense of the. 8. to erm?ichen 1 HOAI mu?diejenigen data contained, which are objectively indispensable after the closed contract and the HOAI, in order the material and computational?erpr?ng the fee. b) The client cannot appoint itself after faithful and faith to the missing Pr??gkeit, even if the calculation without the objectively indispensable data his control and interests of information. C) The client is impossible after faithful and faith with such objections against the Pr??gkeit of the Schlu?echnung, which he did not state sp?stens within one period from 2 months to entrance of the calculation D) in the case, da?die calculation only in parts pr??g already is, can the architect the payment of assets require, under Ber?sichtigung of possible ahead and progress payments. e) The Verj?ung of the demand for fee begins grunds?lich with the distribution of a pr??gen Schlu?echnung. f) The client cannot appoint itself to the missing Pr??gkeit, because the calculation his control and interests of information towards?, the Verj?ung begins, if this circumstance steps f?den architect recognizably after au?n to light. g) The Verj?ung of one on a not pr??ge Honorarschlu?echnung gest?ten demand begins sp?stens, if the period of 2 months ran off, without da?der clients substantiated objections against the Pr??gkeit stated h) is only partial the calculation pr??g, does not begin the Verj?ung of the Honorarschlu?orderung grunds?lich only with the distribution of a altogether pr??gen Schlu?echnung. (see also the following decision) not pr?ar and nevertheless f?ig, judgement of the BGH of 23. The BGH affirmed again a f?igen requirement for work wage without pr?are final account and now?rnimmt its iurisdiction from the architect right VOB/B contract also f?den. The subject of the procedure are separated Werklohnanspr?e from a VOB/B contract of an insolvent company on payment of a blanket rate has the industrial tribunal because of missing F?igkeit zur?gewiesen, there it at a pr?aren final account of the insolvent company. The BGH contradicts that and points out that itself the deplored ones no more destined to the missing Pr?arkeit of the calculation k?en. It amplifiers? against faithful and faith, if client raises objections against the Pr??gkeit of a fee final account sp?r as 2 months after entrance of the calculation (BGH, NZBau. With a VOB/B contract becomes just like. 8 HOAI the Pr?arkeit of the final account to the F?igkeitsvoraussetzung. the client must raise 3 VOB/B the objection of the Pr?arkeit lacking within the 2-Monatsfrist after entrance of the final account, otherwise one it is impossible with this objection. Still Vers?t it the period, takes place the Sachpr?ng (only). thereby essentially follows the BGH an iurisdiction of the OLG D?eldorf. called so far less opinion to the material Pr?usionsvorschrift regarding the objection. The client can state however in the context of the Sachpr?ng also such objections, which he can state its iurisdiction from the architect's fee right against the Pr?arkeit of the calculation the BGH, with which has (see the preceding decision). Set period of exclusion f?die Pr?ng of the final account BGH. raised the client of a VOB/B contract not within two months after entrance of the final account objections against their Pr?arkeit, is not f?ig the work wages also if the calculation are objective inside place grunds?lich to r?en and strew, if it not only a spare time -, but also a Erschlie?ngsfunktion. OLG Hamm OLGR 2001, 244, 245. OLG D?eldorf OLGR 1993, 257th against OLG Frankfurt/Main OLGR 1992, 38, 39 and 91, 93). usually inside place all messuages are to reach to Fu?sicher. Obligation to strew sand or salt injury II (OLG Celle, judgement of 27. With Glatteisunf?en an appearance speaks daf? that the accident injuries avoided with attention of the obligation to strew sand or salt w?n, if the accident within the temporal borders of the obligation to strew sand or salt taken place. Daf?notwendig and sufficiently is it that a Gl?ezustand in the area of responsibility of the strew-requiring is proven. To that to the obligations to strew sand or salt exculpatory Zumutbarkeitspr?ng go? the Erw?ng that the obligation to strew sand or salt does not hurt w?, if only briefly before the accident on the frozen soil rain come down w? and the strew-requiring to one thereby screen end Gl?e yet with strewing did not react themselves m?te. The hurt one has thus a being present the obligation to strew sand or salt begr?enden weather and Stra?nlage to prove, w?end the strew-requiring f?das being present an exceptional case, those strewing unreasonably. Only the obligation existing in the context of the reasonable one to blunt with snow and Eisgl?e the sidewalks to strew the B?ersteig entf?t, if it is useless, there itself Gl?e immediately again. The strew-requiring did not break thus t?g to become, if in view of the concrete weather conditions covering with blunting means f?t only to an insignificant or completely vor?rgehenden reduction that traffic threatening dangers, what with ice by continuous rains on frozen soil applies in particular. If the Gl?e causing Niederschl? end, are to the strew-requiring an appropriate observation and preparation time to be granted, so that it can be still acceptable, if the strew-requiring strews only at expiration of approximately one hour generally may the end (freezing) of the rain again is waiting, even if thereby. This does not apply only if due to special Umst?e a erh?e attention and the obligation meet the safeguardrequiring to special precaution. Entrance of mails (OLG Schleswig, Urt. F?einfache mails does not exist an appearance proof that a transmission given to the post office also reaches the Empf?er. The German Telekom AG meets f?ISDN Anschl?se the contractual Nebenpflicht to separate connections to a 0190-Service after 1 hour with lack statements in Werkvertr?n (OLG Frankfurt, judgement. Even if it is certain that when professional applying of alga destruction means a durable removal of the old person infestation is not to be caused, argues no appearance proof f?den Kl?r that the recurrence of the old person infestation the result of a work contribution contrary to the terms of the agreement. It remains then with the general principle that the orderer has to furnish the proof, those at the entrepreneur achievement in feature stepped Beeintr?tigung places the result of a contrary to the terms of the agreement. (the process was gef?t by us. We divide details and Geb?enunterschreitung (OLG Hamm judgement of 03. 1 BRAO is forbidden to protective effects it f?das old like f?das new Geb?enrecht to agree upon or demand smaller Geb?en, than after the Geb?enordnung planned such unzul?ige Geb?enunterschreitung applied. in favor of third with order for appraisal to the Grundst?swertermittlung a BGH, Urt. With the Pr?ng the question, whether third are included into the save area of a contract, which has the valuation of a Grundst?s to the article, geh?n to the substantial interpretation material the data contained in the appraisal?r its purpose and other contents of the appraisal, in addition, the own data of the consultant to contents and Umst?en of the placing of order. When third, which are included into the save area of an order for appraisal for the valuation of a Grundst?s, comes also a in particular not well-known multiplicity of credit private credits or capital investors into consideration, if the consultant knew after contents him given order for appraisal or on it to count had that the client the appraisal for the acquisition of by a mortgage lien at the Grundst? secured. with the keeping of credit cards OLG Frankfurt, Beschl. Care in handling credit cards forbids it, this together with. "pin", also in more verschl?elter or more camouflaged. The loss message which can be addressed to the credit card spending the enterprise does not take place any longer unverz?ich, if it only 1.5 hours takes place after the discovery of the theft. Rough Fahrl?igkeit with hit a corner-kind-abuses (BGH, judgement of. Time near after the theft of a ec-map using this map and input of the correct pers?ichen secret number (pin) at cash dispensing automats is cash taken off, does speak grunds?lich the proof of the first appearance daf? the fact that the map owner the pin on the ec-map noted or together with this kept, if other causes f?den abuse after the life experience au?r. The M?ichkeit of a Aussp?ns of the pers?ichen secret number (pin) by unknown third is possible as other cause grunds?lich only if the ec-map in a n?ren temporal connection with the input the pin by the map owner at a cash dispensing automat or a pos terminal. Right of revocation of the consumer with InterNet auctions of commercial offerers (eBay I) BGH, Urt. commercially with gold and Silberschmuckst?en acts, set to the InterNet side of the company eBay internationally AG (eBay)"15,00. Diamond bracelet off &euro. 1"for auction delivered the h?ste requirement within the running time of the auction, refused then however the acceptance and payment of the bracelet of the purchase price arranged complaint of the H?lers were in the first instances. The Federal High Court has the revision of the Kl?rs certified of the occupation court zur?gewiesen. 1 BGB stands for a consumer, that refers commodity or services from an entrepreneur due to a remote paragraph contract, grunds?lich a limited right of revocation to the law case stood the question whether this right of revocation does not exist the right of revocation with InterNet auctions of this regulation with Fernabsatzvertr?n, "in the form of auctions (. 156)" closed. This condition does not have the Federal High Court regarding the InterNet auctions of eBay with the Begr?ung answered in the negative, here is present due to the legal arrangement of the contract conclusion the form of the auction, in. 156 BGB is regulated and thus under the committee regulation of the. 312 D exp.. 156 sentence 1 BGB does not come with an auction the contract by the addition of the auctioneer was only missing it with the available InterNet auction of eBay. followed here by an obligatory offer for sale of the Kl?rs and the acceptance of this offer by the H?stgebot of the deplored one - thus by an addition. 156 BGB -. Forms of the contract conclusion, of. 156 BGB deviate, like the Federal High Court ausgef?t, not from the exclusion spr?e zun?st the ausdr?liche reference in the legal text up. 156 BGB and the character of the regulation as one - grunds?lich. in addition, the purpose of the right of revocation a close interpretation of the committee regulation, since the consumer, created in the interest of the consumer protection, that acquires an article with an InterNet auction of a commercial offerer, who is schutzbed?tig same risks suspended and in the same way as with other marketing forms of the remote paragraph. To the question, when an offerer acts OLG Frankfurt, resolution with an eBay auction "in gesch?lichen traffic" (ebay II). The term of acting in gesch?lichen traffic is to be laid out far. By this f?t each selbst?ige, economic purposes serving T?gkeit, which is not a purely private, official or gesch?sinternes behavior (see necessary is here neither the pursuit of a profit-making purpose still another realization of profits intention (Ingerl/Rohnke, mark law. F?das acting in gesch?lichen traffic comes it on recognizably to au?n stepping objective of the action. This results from gro?n the number of Verk?en and/or auctions, itself alone more f?November and December 2002. in this connection also OLG Frankfurt, resolution of 01. The deplored one t?gte also substantial Ums?e, like its registration as "PowerSeller" at the beginning of January 2003. The existence of an industrial concern is not a condition f?die Aus?ng of a gesch?lichen T?gkeit. The offerer in the context of an InterNet auction has to state and prove that a contract with the person of the Ersteigerers were entitled. Of the deplored one objects in such a case the fact that a strange person participated unrechtm?g with his password in the auction does not occur burden of proof reversal after danger circles. It is court well-known that the use of the Internets is connected with dangers, because it m?ich also a ordnungsgem?gesch?tes password is technical "auszusp?n" (keyword z. Trojaner and "Passwortklau") and illegally debited to. The senate does not misjudge that then, if the burden of proof is imposed upon to the Verk?er f?das coming off the contract in the context of an InterNet auction F?e goes remaining by purchase regret on sides of the K?ers without consequences the Verk?er with the use of an InterNet auction in knowledge. Offers after au?n in the Gesch?sverkehr of arising eBay member do not k?en as purely private to be rated, if the daf?vorgebrachten Gr?e (Schmuckst? the wife, Gef?igkeit and acquaintance) the potential prospective buyer f?Verwandte gegen?r to be made not clear. This article by private sold is enough not. Therefore a right of revocation exists in accordance with? in favor of the Erwerbers. 312 D BGB. to consider is the 2-Wochenfrist?r... a law for the protection places 323 C StGB (omitted assistance). It is not inequitable to?rziehen those with a civil adhesion which by the Erf?ung of its auxiliary obligation damage can turn away from others, if these due to its Unt?gkeit tats?lich a Beeintr?tigung. The omitting has the M?ichkeit of a R?griffs as a rule gegen?r the T?r. car wash installation I (OLG D?eldorf, judgement of 16. Does a passenger car is besch?gt w?end the enterprise of a car wash installation, have to relieve itself the operator of the plant regarding its being to blame for concerning the injury of the duty to safeguard traffic towards? its duty to safeguard traffic not already by the fact that the plant corresponds to the generally recognized rules of the technology. Rather it must organize those in such a way by machine, automatically working and therefore not at any time controllable plant, how this is reasonable after the state of the art m?ich and takes place that control and maintenance work are durchgef?t according to the manufacturer recommendations, either via service coworkers of the manufacturer or via own personnel with appropriate knowledge. In the general Gesch?sbedingungen of the operator of a car wash installation are the following clauses because of inadequate disadvantage of the customers. Adhesion f?die Besch?gung au?n at the body. , remains impossible for trim, mirrors, antennas, as well as thereby caused lacquer and Schrammsch?n, unless the washing plant entrepreneur an adhesion from rough being to blame for. "Folgesch?n are not replaced, unless an adhesion from rough being to blame for meets the washing plant entrepreneur." (OLG Saarbr?en, judgement of. The Eigent?r of a privatwegs remains obligated also to the safeguarding of traffic if it the entrance by a sign "Privatgrundst?, Parks forbidden, "regulates an entering and a driving on on own danger. Such a sign can be however under the legal aspect of the contributory negligence f?den traffic veranlassung, the way with winter Verh?nissen. However the payment of the work wages on a gepr?e calculation. Proof with the four eye Gespr? BGH judgement of 27. The principle of the weapon equality requires that that party, f?ein the Gespr? a witness does not have, opportunity is given, their representation of the Gespr?s pers?ich into the process. To that extent neither the hearing of the party can in accordance with. 448 ZPO, still their Anh?ng in accordance with. Probability f?ihr stating to be made abh?ig. Haftungsbeschr?ung with free Personenbef?erung. To the question of Haftungsbeschr?ungen with the Bef?erung of. The free and uneigenn?ige Bef?erung from persons to a commemorative event (here: May celebration of a Burschenschaft) usually represents a Gef?igkeitsfahrt, with which the adhesion of the driver and owner beschr?t on resolution and rough Fahrl?igkeit.