Nobleman case
The Edelmann case is a decision of the Reichsgericht dated May 21, 1927. It shows that legal obligations differ from obligations that arise solely from moral considerations.
facts
General director Mr vZ promised A, employed as operations manager, that he would be given the house as his official residence. Since there was no notarial certification , A questioned the seriousness of the intention to transfer ownership, whereupon vZ declared indignantly that there were no “Jewish customs” with him, that A could be completely reassured, after all, he was of nobility. When still nothing happened, A asked again for the abandonment of the house property, to which vZ replied that this was not a matter of urgency, as it was a purely formality; the notarial declaration could be made at any time that his noble word was as good as a contract for A. Although General Director vZ, according to his statements, had never broken a promise, he did not keep his word to A, which is why the latter tried to enforce his request in court - albeit without success.
Legal position
The obligation to transfer the ownership of a property can only be taken in a notarial contract binding under German law. While one is "without observing this form throughout its content valid when the contract concluded [...] conveyance and the registration in the land register , done" § 311b para. 1 sentence 2 BGB . But that had just not happened in the Edelmann case.
Breaking a word on the part of a legal comrade contradicts moral obligations, but this cannot trigger a legal obligation. Failure to comply with obligations arising from decency and morality escapes state control if it is not accompanied by behavior that violates the law . "Anyone who relies on a 'nobleman' s word instead of the right must accept it when the 'nobleman' does not keep his word."
Note: A correction via Section 242 of the German Civil Code (BGB) is also ruled out if a balance between legal certainty and the just solution of the individual case results in undue hardship , since the parties involved have deliberately deviated from the legal form requirement ("Anyone who places himself outside the legal system has does not deserve their protection ”). However, if the formal requirements are negligently disregarded - if one follows an interpretation favorable to laypersons - effectiveness can be assumed; likewise when there is a strong dependency relationship between the parties involved, e.g. B. if one part, taking advantage of its economic and social position, prevents the other part from maintaining the form. For example, in a decision of the former Fifth Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice “royal merchant”, which was similar to the noble man's case, in a further development of the decision on court law .
See also
Web links
- Stephan Lorenz : Noble word judgment
- OpinioIuris / Edelmannswort case: RG, decision v. May 21, 1927, Az .: RG V 476/26 = RGZ 117, 121
