Milling machine case
The milling machine case is a German legal dispute that was decided in 1968 by the 8th Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice . The case is important for legal training because it raises complex questions of property law . Above all, the Senate had to comment on the interpretation of Section 934 BGB (time of acquisition of property by the unauthorized person upon assignment of the right to surrender ). This is important for the effect and limits of the retention of title . It is one of the classic school cases in legal training .
Facts (simplified)
The applicant sold a milling machine under retention of title to the purchaser H. This through suitable milling machine before the full payment under a security transfer to his bank C. This, in turn, the milling machine via suitable under assignment of its claim for restitution against H of the security agreement to the defendant. The milling machine stayed with H.
The parties argued over ownership of the milling machine. The district court had the complaint upheld the Court of Appeal dismissed her.
decision
According to the Federal Court of Justice, the plaintiff was no longer the owner of the milling machine because the defendant had acquired the machine in good faith.
As a result of the sale under retention of title, since the purchase price had not yet been paid, H did not acquire ownership, but only an expectant right . Accordingly, bank C could also acquire ownership from the unauthorized person. According to § 930 , § 933 BGB, this presupposes that the thing is handed over to her. As is usual with the transfer of ownership by way of security, the milling machine remained with H, so that transfer of ownership had to fail. The declarations of intent aimed at this could, however, be reinterpreted in the way of a “first right conclusion” according to § 140 BGB so that C should at least acquire the expectant right.
However, the defendant could have acquired ownership of the milling machine. Again, only purchase in good faith from the unauthorized person comes into consideration because C was not the owner. Because the machine was not passed, but C the defendant his claim from the security agreement with H ceded , had the acquisition of property governed by § 931 , § 934 BGB. This provision differentiates for the time of acquisition according to whether the seller - here C - was the indirect owner of the thing or not. Therefore, the BGH first had to deal with the question of whether the ineffectiveness of the transfer of ownership from H to C under Section 139 of the German Civil Code (BGB) leads to the ineffectiveness of the intermediary relationship , so that C would not have been the indirect owner. The court denied this, however, as it was in the interests of both parties that the security-taking C should in any case receive the expectant right of the D as security.
However, the transfer could also have failed because H had undertaken to convey ownership to both C and the plaintiff. In the literature it was and is still held today that such secondary ownership is not sufficient for indirect ownership within the meaning of § 934 BGB. However, the BGH rejects the legal figure of secondary ownership and instead considers the immediate owner's willingness to convey ownership to be decisive. As evidenced by the security agreement on the part of D, the will of D was directed towards C. Since C was thus an indirect owner, the requirements of § 934 BGB were met and the defendant had already acquired ownership of the milling machine in good faith and in accordance with § 936 free of encumbrances with the assignment of the claim for surrender.
Web links
- Preparation and solution of the milling machine case in the exam - juraexamen.info
Individual evidence
- ↑ cf. Judgment of March 27, 1968 BGHZ 50, 45 ( Memento of the original of January 2, 2005 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. ; NJW 1968, 1382
- ↑ cf. Munich Commentary on BGB § 934 Rn. 4 mwN
