Page 417 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn
P. 417

CONTEMPORARY CIVIL LAW
to the rescission of § 437 (2) BGB 2002, a buyer would be able to sue for rescission even after the periods to bring remedies for repair, replacement or compensation for loss due to non-conformity have lapsed. After all, the latter period already starts at the physical delivery or transfer of the thing, whereas the limitation of § 195 does not start to run before the creditor knows of his loss. Consequently, in theory and practice, the question arose whether rescission in the event of non-conformity should not likewise be curbed in accordance with the 30-, five-, and two-year periods for non-conformity of § 438.
A first answer to this question was formulated in a 2006 case brought before the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH). Germany's highest court for revision of cases first explained the viewpoint of scholars who argued in favour of applying the various limitation periods of the remedy for non-conformity in § 438 likewise to rescission in the event of non-conformity. They defended their position with the argument that the seller should not have to worry about a remedy for rescission over a longer period than he has to worry about remedies for repair or replacement.64
Advocates of keeping to the general three-year period of limitation of § 195 applicable to the remedy for rescission argued - doctrinally sound, but demonstrating only minor concerns with practicability - that a buyer gives effect to rescission by plain announcement. The remedy for rescission in § 437 (2) BGB 200265 in their view is actually a remedy against debtors not living up to their duties which result from a prior rescission by plain announcement, and not a remedy aimed at rescission of the sale itself.66 One can think of a buyer who claims back the money he paid, now that the sales is rescinded and the seller refuses to give back the paid sum. These kind of claims are governed by the general limitation period of § 195 and not by the limitation periods for non-conformity in § 438 BGB 2002.67
This argument, however, elicits new questions. First, it implies that the buyer has to wait for a certain amount of time before he can bring the remedy in § 437 (2). The seller has to be granted some time to be able to fulfil his new obligations which have arisen due to the rescission by plain announcement. The question is how much time the seller should be granted. Furthermore, the reasoning does not deal with what is at stake, sc. not the limitation of remedies available after the seller refused to live up to his obligations due to rescission, but the limitation of the remedy for rescission itself. How long does the buyer
64 BGH 14 November 2006, VIII ZR 3/06, no. 36: 'Dies soll einer ergänzenden Auslegung des § 218 BGB zu entnehmen sein, wonach der Schuldner den Konsequenzen des Rücktritts nicht länger ausgesetzt sein solle als denen des Leistungs - und Nacherfüllungsanspruchs'.
65 § 437 BGB 2002: Ist die Sache mangelhaft, kann der Käufer, ..., 2. nach den §§ 440, 323 und 326 Abs. 5 von dem Vertrag zurücktreten oder nach § 441 den Kaufpreis mindern...
66 In German legal terminology the remedy for rescission in § 437 (2) BGB 2002 is an right flowing forth from a rescission (Anspruch aus Rücktritt) and not a right to rescission Gestaltungsrecht.
67 BGH 14 November 2006, VIII ZR 3/06, no. 36: 'Nach der überwiegend vertretenen Gegenansicht, die der Senat teilt, unterliegen Ansprüche des Käufers aus wirksam erklärtem Rücktritt wegen eines Mangels der Kaufsache dagegen der dreijährigen Regelverjährung nach §§ 195, 199 BGB. Erst durch den Rücktritt entsteht ein Rückabwicklungs-schuldverhältnis nach §§ 346 bis 348 BGB, aus dem sich der Anspruch des Käufers auf Kaufpreisrückzahlung ergibt. Dieser Anspruch wird von § 438 BGB nicht erfasst'.
 415

























































































   415   416   417   418   419