Back to issue
Cover of: Zur Vermutung der Mangelhaftigkeit beim Verbrauchsgüterkauf
Giesela Rühl

Zur Vermutung der Mangelhaftigkeit beim Verbrauchsgüterkauf

[The Presumption of Non-Conformity in Consumer Sales Law - The Jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Justice in comparative perspective - Zur Vermutung der Mangelhaftigkeit beim Verbrauchsgüterkauf Die Rechtsprechung des BGH in rechtsvergleichender P]
Section: Aufsätze
Volume 73 (2009) / Issue 4, pp. 912-934 (23)
Published 09.07.2018
DOI 10.1628/003372509789566695
  • article PDF
  • Open Access
    CC BY 4.0
  • 10.1628/003372509789566695
Summary
The Presumption of Non-Conformity in Consumer Sales Law - The Jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Justice in comparative perspective. The Law on the Modernisation of the Law of Obligations has introduced a large number of provisions into the German Civil Code. One of these provisions has kept German courts particularly busy during the last years: § 476. The provision implements Art. 5 III of the Consumer Sales Directive and provides that any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within six months of delivery of the goods is presumed to have existed at the time of delivery unless this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity. The presumption has proved to be difficult to apply in practice: the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof; hereinafter BGH) alone as issued eight - highly controversial - decisions. And numerous articles, case notes and commentaries have analysed and criticised each and every one of them. It is therefore surprising to see that both the BGH and the German literature refrain from exploiting one very obvious source of information that might help to deal with § 476: comparative law. Even though Art. 5 III of the Consumer Sales Directive has been implemented in all Member States except for Lithuania nobody has endeavoured to analyse its application in other countries to this date. The above article tries to fill this gap and looks at § 476 from a comparative perspective. It finds that courts across Europe apply the provision in the same way as the BGH regarding the exclusion and the rebuttal of the presumption. However, regarding the scope of the presumption, the BGH stands alone with its strict interpretation. In fact, no other court in Europe refuses to apply the presumption in cases in which a defect that occurs after delivery might be the result of a basic defect present at the time of delivery. The article, therefore, concludes that the BGH should rethink its position regarding the scope of the presumption and refer the next case to the European Court of Justice.