Falsa demonstratio non nocet
Falsa demonstratio non nocet (mostly abbreviated: falsa demonstratio ) is Latin and means “a misnomer does no harm”. Itis not detrimental tothe conclusion and effectiveness of a contract if the parties agree to want the same thing, but call it incorrectly, as long as the inner will of the parties agrees.
The legal term falsa demonstratio non nocet is a special case of the interpretation ( § 133 BGB ) of declarations of intent that need to be received, because in bilateral legal transactions, the corresponding declarations of intent themselves are recorded as "real will" contrary to their wording in the sense of what the parties wanted . In principle, the interpretation of contracts is determined by how a reasonable, objective third party may understand the content. This objective recipient horizon, however, serves to protect the recipient of the declaration, who does not need protection if he has correctly understood what was actually intended and has entered into the contract. Because the contract exists only between the contracting parties, there is no reason for the legal system to disregard the mutual will of the parties.
Since the interpretation allows the “real will” to come into effect, there is no room for contesting the declarations under Section 119 of the German Civil Code.
Examples
A famous example from German legal history is the so-called Haakjöringsköd case , which the Imperial Court had to decide in 1920. Two parties signed a purchase agreement on the assumption that Haakjöringsköd was Norwegian for whale meat; in fact, Haakjöringsköd means “shark meat”. The Reichsgericht decided that a purchase contract for the mutually wanted whale meat had come about.
Another example is the distinction between termination and liquidation agreements in labor law . With the termination agreement , an existing employment relationship is terminated; with the winding-up agreement, provisions are made for a previously terminated employment relationship. In simplified terms, it can be said that one contract is concluded before or instead of termination , the other after termination. The distinction is particularly relevant because of blocking periods for unemployment benefits . If the employer and employee now conclude a contract before giving notice of termination and designate it (actually incorrectly) as a "settlement contract", according to the case law of the Federal Social Court, the principles of the falsa demonstratio are to be applied: Despite its designation as a settlement contract, the contract is in truth a termination contract; the misnomer does not invalidate it.
In commercial legal protection, in particular in the patent system, it is harmless according to this principle if functional or structural elements are incorrectly named according to professional understanding. A stud bolt described is rated as a stud bolt, even if it is referred to as a screw or even a nail, for example. The same can apply if loan instead of loan or legacy instead of inheritance is meant.
Section 300 of the (German) Code of Criminal Procedure states: "An error in the designation of the permissible legal remedy is harmless". So an appeal has been effectivelyfiled even if it was mistakenly called a “ revision ” or “complaint”. Section 357 (1) sentence 3 AO reads: "Incorrect description of the objection does not harm."
See also
Individual evidence
- ↑ BGH NJW 1994, 1528 ff. (1529); BGHZ 168, 35 Rn. 13.
- ^ Dieter Medicus , Jens Petersen : Civil law. A presentation of exam preparation , arranged according to the basis of entitlements , 25th edition, Verlag Franz Vahlen 2015, p. 53 f.
- ↑ a b c Fritzsche, Jörg: Cases on the BGB General Part, 7th edition, Munich 2019, p. 121 f.
