Federal Court Of Justice: Reverse Burden Of Proof For Used Car Purchases

Table of contents:

Federal Court Of Justice: Reverse Burden Of Proof For Used Car Purchases
Federal Court Of Justice: Reverse Burden Of Proof For Used Car Purchases

Video: Federal Court Of Justice: Reverse Burden Of Proof For Used Car Purchases

Video: Federal Court Of Justice: Reverse Burden Of Proof For Used Car Purchases
Video: Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings 2024, March
Anonim

The Federal Court of Justice follows the rulings of the European Court of Justice in the event of defects after the purchase of a used car. The burden of proof is now on the seller.

If a defect occurs within six months when buying a used vehicle, the buyer has it easier according to the latest case law: He does not have to prove the reason for the defect or the fact that it is attributable to the seller. The Federal Court of Justice has thus interpreted the so-called reversal of the burden of proof of Section 476 BGB more generously for the consumer.

The plaintiff bought a used BMW from a dealer, which after almost five months the automatic no longer switched properly. He finally resigned from the purchase agreement and requested, among other things, the repayment of the purchase price. The lawsuit was unsuccessful in the lower courts. The Higher Regional Court, in agreement with the Regional Court, took the view that the plaintiff had not provided any evidence that the vehicle had a material defect when it was handed over. Another possible cause is an operating error by the driver.

Interpretation in accordance with European law

The LG and OLG judges also argued that the plaintiff could not invoke the reversal of the burden of proof regulation in § 476 BGB, which intervenes in favor of a consumer. They were based on the previous case law of the Federal Court of Justice: According to this, the provision only establishes an assumption that is effective in terms of time that a material defect that occurred within six months was already present at the time of purchase. If - as here - it cannot be clarified whether the car was not in order when it was bought, this is at the buyer's expense.

With the current judgment, the Federal Court of Justice has now changed its previous case law in order to bring it into line with the interpretation at European level: Last year, the ECJ had interpreted the EU consumer goods sales directive corresponding to § 476 BGB differently (C-497/13). According to the Federal Court of Justice, this requires that the scope of this reversal of the burden of proof regulation be expanded in favor of the consumer by way of a guideline-compliant interpretation of § 476 BGB.

Lots of freedom for the buyer

Unlike in the past, the buyer does not have to prove the reason for the lack of conformity - i.e. for the broken automatic system - nor the fact that he is attributable to the seller. He only has to prove that the purchased item does not meet the quality, performance and suitability standards of an item that he could reasonably expect according to the contract. In addition, the buyer no longer has to prove that the defect that occurred after the purchase was caused by a defect that was at least initially present.

The consequence of this changed interpretation of § 476 BGB is a shift of the burden of proof from the buyer to the seller to a greater extent than before: The legal presumption states that at the time of the transfer of risk there was at least one material defect that was developing, the seller must prove that it is not so. In the present case, the used car dealer mustProvide evidence that the error in the automatic was not present at the time of purchase because it originated in an action or inaction by the new owner. If he does not succeed in this, the presumption of § 476 BGB also applies in favor of the buyer if the cause of the defective condition or the time of its occurrence remains open. So even if it remains unclear whether there was a material defect for which the seller was responsible.

Buyer can be asked for information

The seller has the option to invoke and to prove that the intervention of the reversal of the burden of proof of § 476 BGB is excluded as an exception. This is the case if the presumption that the defect was already present at the time of purchase is not compatible with the nature of the item or the defect. In individual cases, the buyer can also be asked to provide information on how he is handling the object of purchase.

The BGH overturned the appeal judgment and referred the case back for a new hearing and decision. In view of the new interpretation of § 476 BGB, the court must now clarify whether the seller was able to prove that the automatic damage was not in the beginning at the time of purchase, but was due to a subsequent cause (operating error). (VIII ZR 103/15). (SP-X)

Recommended: