Contract Law — The Formation of Contracts
| Date | Citation | Note |
|---|---|---|
| 25.11.2004 | BGH V ZR 13/04 V. Civil Senate | If the actual transfer of property to a minor, in and of itself, is purely advantageous in legal terms, his declaration of agreement to the transfer does not need the approval of his statutory representative or other body entrusted with his care, and this is true even if the underlying agreement contains some onerous obligations. In such a case the transactions giving rise to the obligation to transfer and the actual transfer agreement should be appraised quite separately. The transfer of land to a minor is purely advantageous in legal terms even if the land is burdened by a real charge. The same is true where there is a usufruct, provided that the usufructuary is to bear any exceptional repairs or improvements and any unusual burdens on the land. The fact that the transferee of land is subject to the normal public land charges does not constitute a legal disadvantage in the sense of §107 BGB. |
| 03.11.2004 | BGH VIII ZR 395/03 VIII. Civil Senate | Since contracts of sale made by means of internet-auction are formed by offer and acceptance under §145 ff. BGB and not by a 'Zuschlag' (hammer-blow) under §156 BGB, the consumers right to withdraw from a contract with a trader is not excluded by §312 d (4) no. 5 BGB. § 312 d (4) BGB |
| 21.01.2004 | BGH XII ZR 214/00 XII. Civil Senate | §a) When does a declaration of intention sent by Fax "arrive" ("zugehen"), if the addressee, who must receive it, is away on holiday?b) What is the proper construction of a term in a lease that notice to determine it is to be sent by registered letter?127 BGB (pre-2001 version) and § 130(1) |
| 07.11.2001 | BGH NJW 2002, 363 VIII. Civil Senate (VIII ZR 13/01) | |
| 07.11.2001 | BGH VIII ZR 13/01 VIII. Civil Senate | Formation and validity of sales on the internet. §§145 ff. BGB |
| 01.10.1999 | BGH NJW 1999, 3704 V. Civil Senate (V ZR 168/98) | |
| 29.06.1999 | BGH NJW 1999, 2883 XI. Civil Senate (XI ZR 277/98) | |
| 29.03.1996 | BGH NJW 1996, 1884 V. Civil Senate (V ZR 332/94) | |
| 29.02.1996 | BGH NJW 1996, 1467 = BGHZ 132, 119 IX. Civil Senate (IX ZR 153/95) | |
| 18.05.1995 | BGHZ 130, 19 X. Civil Senate | |
| 23.06.1994 | BAG NZA 1994, 1080 (2 AZR 617/93) | |
| 17.06.1991 | BGH NJW-RR 1991, 1241 II. Civil Senate (II ZR 171/90) | |
| 12.11.1986 | BGHZ 99, 101 VII. Civil Senate | |
| 09.10.1986 | BGH NJW-RR 1987, 144 VII. Civil Senate (VII ZR 245/85) | |
| 20.03.1985 | BGH NJW 1985, 1838 VIII. Civil Senate |
|
| 03.05.1984 | RGZ 144, 289 IV. Civil Senate | |
| 22.02.1984 | BGHZ 90, 198 VIII. Civil Senate | |
| 19.03.1980 | OLG Köln RBKR 1980, 270 BB 1980, 1237 AZ 2 U 95/79 |
|
| 03.11.1976 | BGHZ 67, 271 VIII. Civil Senate (VIII ZR 140/75) | §§ 130, 132, 242 BGB |
| 18.01.1976 | BGHZ 66, 51 VIII. Civil Senate (VIII ZR 246/74) Gemüseblatt-decision = NJW 1976, 712 = JZ 1976, 776 = VersR 1976, 589 (with approving note by Kreuzer) |
§§ 278, 328 BGB |
| 20.11.1975 | BGH NJW 1976, 801 Anti-Trust Senate |
|
| 24.10.1975 | OLG Hamm NJW 1976, 1212 | |
| 31.07.1975 | OLG Braunschweig NJW 1976, 570 | |
| 12.06.1975 | BGH NJW 1975, 1774 X. Civil Senate |
|
| 20.03.1974 | BGH NJW 1974, 991 VIII. Civil Senate | |
| 21.04.1972 | BGH NJW 1972, 1189 V. Civil Senate | |
| 21.04.1972 | BGH NJW 1972, 1189 V. Civil Senate |
|
| 05.04.1971 | BGHZ 56, 81 VII. Civil Senate | |
| 09.07.1970 | BGHZ 54, 236 VII. Civil Senate (VII ZR 70/68) | § 346 HGB |
| 27.01.1965 | BGH NJW 1965, 965 VIII. Civil Senate | |
| 16.12.1964 | BGH NJW 1965, 387 VIII. Civil Senate | |
| 02.04.1964 | BGHZ 41, 271 Anti-Trust Senate (KZR 10/62) | § 26 II GWB § 1 MilchFettG §§ 154, 315 BGB |
| 15.11.1962 | BAG NJW 1963, 554 II. Civil Senate | |
| 05.10.1961 | BGHZ 36, 30 VII. Civil Senate (VII ZR 207/60) Idealheim- decision | §§ 164, 179, 812 BGB |
| 08.04.1957 | BGH NJW 1957, 1105 III. Civil Senate | |
| 22.06.1956 | BGHZ 21, 102 I. Civil Senate (I ZR 198/54) | |
| 20.06.1952 | BGHZ 6, 330 V. Civil Senate (V ZR 34/51) | § 37 II DGO § 276 BGB |
| 12.02.1952 | BGHZ 5, 111 I. Civil Senate (I ZR 96/51) | §§ 157, 167 BGB |
| 07.11.1931 | RGZ 133, 388 V. Civil Senate | |
| 08.04.1931 | RGZ 124, 81 VI. Civil Senate | |
| 25.06.1929 | RGZ 125, 68 VII. Civil Senate | |
| 21.05.1927 | RGZ 117, 121 V. Civil Senate (V 476/26) Edelmannswort -decision | §§ 313, 242 BGB |
| 12.07.1922 | RGZ 105, 256 III. Civil Senate | |
| 05.04.1922 | RGZ 104, 265 I. Civil Senate | |
| 03.12.1920 | RGZ 101, 47 VII. Civil Senate | |
| 08.06.1920 | RGZ 99, 147 | |
| 07.12.1911 | RGZ 78, 239 VI. Civil Senate (VI 240/11) Linoleumrollen -decision = JW 1912, 191 | Claimant bought items in defendant's store and went to look for linoleum; assistant pulled two rolls aside which fell and struck claimant and her child; purchase not made Defendant liable for fault of assistant under § 278 BGB as he acted for defendant (§ 164; § 54 HGB) Legal relationship in preparation for purchase so both parties owed duty to care for health and property of other Unjust for defendant only to be liable under § 831 BGB § 278, 831 BGB §§ 54, 164 HGB |
| 08.02.1902 | RGZ 50, 191 I. Civil Senate |