Page 418 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

CHAPTER EIGHT
have to wait before he can rescind the sale by plain announcement?
Despite these questions, the BGH makes the reasoning of the advocates in favour
of keeping the general three-year period of limitation of § 195 applicable to the remedy for rescission its own. As a result, apparently remedies exist for non-conformity which the buyer has to bring within 30, five or two years, depending on the kind of thing sold, but also a remedy for not living up to one's obligations which results from rescission, which the buyer must institute within three years from the moment the buyer is able to bring it. When he is able to bring it, remains unclear, however.68 It is to be expected that this complex system of remedies will spawn cases in which litigants will question the lines drawn by the BGH.69
What adds to the complexity is that besides the remedies for non-conformity or the one based on rescission, the buyer of a non-conforming thing can also bring a remedy for delictual or quasi-delictual damages. For example, he can bring a remedy for deliberate fraud70 or delict.71 Furthermore, a buyer who suffered loss due to the non-conformity of the thing he had bought can retrieve consequential loss (Mangelfolgeschäden), if he succeeds in proving the seller's fault. In a 2016 case before the Bundesgerichtshof, it was furthermore decided that in the event of non-conformity the buyer could sue for damages because of unjust enrichment, if the remedies for non-conformity were not available.72
All these remedies expire in keeping with the general three-year limitation counted from the moment the loss became known to the creditor and not from the moment of delivery, similar to the remedies for non-conformity.73 Consequently, the situation can occur in which the buyer already lost his remedies for non-conformity, but can still bring one of the above mentioned claims for damages caused by the non-conformity in time. Indeed, in various cases plaintiffs sue for damages on the ground of delict, deliberate fraud or Mangelfolgeschäden to circumvent the quickly expiring limitation period of the remedy for damages due to non-conformity.74
It is debatable whether such an unravelling of one and the same factual situation
68 § 195 jo. § 199 (1) BGB 2002.
69 Cf. going against the BGH's view LG Frankfurt am Main, 19 July 2006, 2-02 O 470/05, no. 12: 'Ein
Rücktritt wegen nicht vertragsgemäß erbrachter Leistungen ist zwar unwirksam, wenn der Nacherfüllungsanspruch verjährt ist (§§ 438 IV, 218 BGB)'; retrievable from <www.lareda.hessenrecht.hessen.de>
70 § 438 (3) BGB 2002: (3) Abweichend von Absatz 1 Nr. 2 und 3 und Absatz 2 verjähren die Ansprüche in der regelmäßigen Verjährungsfrist, wenn der Verkäufer den Mangel arglistig verschwiegen hat. Im Falle des Absatzes 1 Nr. 2 tritt die Verjährung jedoch nicht vor Ablauf der dort bestimmten Frist ein.
71 § 823 (1) BGB 2002.
72 BGH 25 February 2016, VII ZR 156/13, no. 44.
73 § 823 (1) jo. § 195 and § 199; Maximilian, Anwendung, p. 40; BGH, 7 March 2007, VIII ZR 218/06, no.
14.
74 OLG Brandenburg, 1 July 2008, 6 U 120/07, no. 14. Retrievable from
<www.gerichtsentscheidungen.berlin-brandenburg.de>; OLG Nürnberg, 30 June 2015, 2 U 1836/14, nos. 4, 13; LG Aschaffenburg, 27 February 2015, 32 O 216/14, Entscheidungsgrund no 2; LG Kempten, 15 December 2014, 21 O 186/13, Entscheidungsgrund A2: 'Hinsichtlich der Mangelfolgeschäden sind die Schadensersatzansprüche des Klägers nicht verjährt. Für die letztgenannten Ansprüche gilt die regelmäßige Verjährungsfrist von 3 Jahren gem. § 195 BGB'; the last three decisions are all retrievable from <www.gesetze-bayern.de>.
416