Page 395 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn
P. 395

CHAPTER SEVEN
7.7.3 Limitation periods
Regarding the limitation of the remedies for a breach of Gewährleistung, Dernburg (1829-
1907)304 made the following observation.
'Die kürze Verjährung der Klagen wegen Mängel der Kaufsache hat sich in das neuere Recht, insbesondere auch in das BGB vererbt.'305
Dernburg'; s statement is only partly true, however. Admittedly, similar to the aedilician remedies for latent defects, the remedies in the the BGB are subject to short limitation periods. However, unlike ius commune-doctrine, the BGB makes the limitation periods of the remedy for returning the thing and of the remedy for price reduction depend on what kind of object has been sold. According to§ 477, both remedies have to be brought within six months in case of movables or within one year, if the object of the sales is an immovable.306 Again the ius commune-limitation previously based on the kind of remedy is replaced by a limitation grounded in whether the thing sold is a movable or unmovable. Before the BGB, the ALR and ABGB had already opted for a similar approach.307
Furthermore, the BGB subjects a breach of warranty to the same short limitation periods determined for a breach of the seller's safeguarding duties.308 In ius commune, this was different. Wrongly warranting a quality's presence or absence in itself amounted to fraud, which justified the long 30-year period of limitation and liability for all damages.309 According to the BGB, however, the 30-year period and full liability only apply, if the breach of warranty is accompanied by fraudulent concealment (arglistiges Verschweigen).310
The reason the BGB's drafters justify a short limitation in the case of a breach of warranty is legal certainty. If after a short period the seller no longer has to be afraid for a future claim, he can invest the revenues from the sale in other commercial activities without having to fear of needing them at a later stage for compensation. All this would be thwarted, if the buyer retained the ability to sue because of a breach of warranty after the
304 G. Wesenberg, 'Dernburg, Heinrich', in: NDB, 3 (1957), pp. 608-609.
305 Dernburg, Pandekten, vol. 1, § 147, p. 342.
306 §477 BGB: Der Anspruch auf Wandelung oder auf Minderung sowie der Anspruch auf Schadensersatz
wegen Mangels einer zugesicherten Eigenschaft verjährt, sofern nicht der Verkäufer den Mangel arglistig verschwiegen hat, bei beweglichen Sachen in sechs Monaten von der Ablieferung, bei Grundstücken in einem Jahre von der Uebergabe an. Die Verjährungsfrist kann durch Vertrag verlängert werden...; Mugdan, Materialien, vol. 2, § 397, p. 131.
307 Leske, Vergleichende Darstellung, vol. 1, § 60, p. 204.
308 §477 BGB: ... sowie der Anspruch auf Schadensersatz wegen Mangels einer zugesicherten
Eigenschaft...
309 Windscheid, Pandekten, vol. 2, § 393, p. 513: 'der Anspruch auf Leistung des Interesse verjährt in der
gewöhnlichen Frist'; cf. D. 19.1.13.3: Quid tamen si ignoravit quidem furem esse, adseveravit autem bonae frugi et fidum et caro vendidit? Videamus, an ex empto teneatur. Et putem teneri. Atqui ignoravit: sed non debuit facile quae ignorabat adseverare. Inter hunc igitur et qui scit praemonere debuit furem esse, hic non debuit facilis esse ad temerariam indicationem.
310 Entwurf, §397 BGB, p. 240; Leske, Vergleichende Darstellung, vol. 1, § 60, p. 204.; yet, a 1905 case of the Reichsgericht mentions the court in first instance still using the ius commune approach according to which being aware of a defect and not revealing it already equals fraud. RG 1 July 1906, vol. 61, no. 41, p. 172.
 391
















































































   393   394   395   396   397