Restitution Law — Restitution
| Date | Citation | Note |
|---|---|---|
| 10.02.2004 | BGH X ZR 117/02 X. Civil Senate | If the donee of a thing is released from his restitutionary obligation as a result of donating it to a third party, the liability of the third party is not to restore the object itself but rather its value, a liability he can satisfy by returning the object. §§528(1), 822 BGB |
| 26.04.2001 | BGH BauR 2001, 1412 | The architects’ claim under §§ 684, 812 ff BGB is not excluded by the fact that an enrichment claim against the building owner has at the same time accrued to the former contractor after conclusion of its work §§ 179, 684, 818 III BGB |
| 24.04.2001 | BGHZ 147, 269 | In a case of performance by virtue of instructions the enrichment settlement takes place in principle within each performance relationship, and thus on the one hand between the person giving instructions and the person given instructions in the so-called cover (Deckungs-) relationship, and on the other hand between the person giving instructions and the recipient under the instructions in the so-called value (Valuta-) relationship §§ 812, 826 BGB |
| 20.03.2001 | BGHZ 147, 145 | A bank cashing a cheque in the absence of attributability of the ineffective declaration of instructions has no claim based on enrichment against the holder of the account if he actually owed the sum paid and the recipient of the payment did not know the lack of validity The settlement in enrichment law must be exclusively carried out in the relationship between the bank and the recipient of the payment §§ 140, 812 BGB; Art. 1 ScheckG |
| 19.01.2001 | BGHZ 146, 298 | Even if the prerequisites of § 819 I BGB are not fulfilled for a favoured party, the ‘saldo theory’ cannot be applied to the party disadvantaged by a transaction which is akin to an extortionate action §§ 138, 819 I BGB |
| 29.09.2000 | BGH WM 2000, 2190 | The ‘saldo theory’ (balance theory) has no application to the dismantling in enrichment law of a contract which is void because of the legal incapacity of a contracting partner §§ 812, 818 BGB |
| 18.07.2000 | EBE/BGH 2000, 322 | Limitation of claims for compensation of value for the services of the illegal employees based on unjust enrichment is subject to the four year limitation period of the ineffective contract The sub-contracted employee only has a claim to reimbursement against the hirer under § 10 (1) of the AÜG on the basis of the ineffective supply arrangement; the supplier and the hirer are not in a joint debtor relationship §§ 812, 267, 421, 426 BGB, § 1 AÜG |
| 14.07.2000 | BGHZ 145, 52 | If parties both take into account in enrichment settlement items in balance (Saldo) – rent obtained by purchaser, credit interest saved by seller – set off declared against another claim (compensation of purchaser for credit interest spent) with a balance item is only significant when balance is established §§ 812, 818 I, III, 819 I BGB |
| 29.02.2000 | BGH NVersZ 2000, 299 | If a liability insurer of a landlord paid an insurance advance, the claim for enrichment is not directed against the landlord but to his liability insurer who has made payment as a third party §§ 812, 267 BGB |
| 04.02.1999 | BGH WM 1999, 484 | Claimant whose father arranged, in agreement with the claimant’s sister, the transmission of shares from claimant’s deposit in the claimant’s name to a deposit in the sister’s name cannot demand the return of investment shares as unjustified enrichment § 812 |
| 08.01.1993 | OLG Hamm NJW 1993, 2321 | A life insurer is not obliged to pay a certain endowment sum if the declaration of will leading to conclusion of the contract has been effectively avoided, so that there is no contract §§ 119, 144 BGB |
| 17.06.1992 | BGHZ 118, 383 XII. Civil Senate (XII ZR 119/91) | §§ 812, 818 III, IV, 819 I, 820 I BGB |
| 23.02.1990 | BGH BB 1990, 735 V. Civil Senate = NJW-RR 1990, 827 |
|
| 31.01.1990 | BGHZ 111, 308 VII. Civil Senate (VII ZR 336/89) = NJW 1990, 2524 | §§ 134, 812, 817, 818 II BGB |
| 09.03.1989 | BGHZ 107, 117 I. Civil Senate (I ZR 189/86) | §§ 812 I BGB |
| 15.05.1986 | BGH NJW 1986, 2700 VII. Civil Senate |
|
| 19.01.1984 | BGHZ 89, 376 VII. Civil Senate (VII ZR 110/83) | § 812 BGB |
| 11.01.1971 | BGHZ 55, 176 VIII. Civil Senate (VIII ZR 61/69) Jungbullen -decision | §§ 818 III, 951, 993 BGB |
| 07.01.1971 | BGH NJW 1971, 609 VII. Civil Senate (VII ZR 9/70) Flugreise-decision |
|
| 31.10.1963 | BGHZ 40, 272 VII. Civil Senate (VII ZR 285/61) Elektrogeräte -decision | §§ 812, 951 BGB |
| 20.06.1963 | BGHZ 40, 28 VII. Civil Senate (VII ZR 263/61) Funkenflug -decision | § 683 BGB |
| 25.03.1963 | BGHZ 39, 186 VII. Civil Senate (VII ZR 270/61) |
|
| 21.12.1956 | BGHZ 23, 61 V. Civil Senate (V ZR 110/56) Bauwerk- decision | § 951 BGB |