Content error
In German civil law, the content error denotes the unconscious divergence between the objectively declared and the subjectively wanted when making a declaration of intent , as a result of the fact that the declaring party was in error when making a declaration of intent about its content ( Section 119 (1) Alt.1 BGB ).
requirement
A content error exists if the person making the declaration was in error about its content when submitting a declaration of intent . The person making the declaration explains what he wants to explain, but he is mistaken about the legal meaning of his declaration. He attaches a different meaning to his explanation than that which actually exists.
A classic example is the order of “214 barrels of Haakjöringsköd from Norway at a price of 4.30 marks per kilogram” by a Hamburg dealer in November 1916. When ordering, the dealer erroneously assumed that Haakjöringsköd meant whale meat . In fact, the word “Haakjöringsköd” in Norwegian refers to shark meat ( Haakjöringsköd case ).
Legal consequence
Despite the error, the declaration of intent is effective for the recipient of the declaration, as the recipient of the declaration can rely on the correctness of the declaration made by the declarant. The contractual partner found in the content error is to be challenged according to § 119 para. 1 1st alt. BGB entitled. The error, however, must be "significant", which means that if the facts were known and the assessment was made intelligently, the declaration would not have been made. If there is a reason for contestation with the content error, this must be declared to the correct contestant within the contestation period of Section 121 (1) BGB according to Section 143 (1) BGB, which in turn results in the retroactive (ex tunc) nullity of the legal transaction according to Section 142 ( 1) BGB 1 BGB leads.
special cases
Sometimes a declaration of intent that is incorrect in terms of content can be interpreted in such an unusual way that the error must be obvious to the recipient of the declaration. In such a case, there are no corresponding declarations of intent, which means that no contract can be concluded. A prime example of this is when a school ordered “25 gros rolls of toilet paper”. The term “bulk” was considered by the ordering vice-principal of the school to be a type of packaging. The amount of paper would have been enough for years, which is why the supplier could see that the size was incorrect. The supplier could not insist on the purchase of 25 gros.
Falsa demonstratio non nocet , for example, are also special cases : Here, as in the Haakjöringsköd case , both sides explain something incorrect from the point of view of a neutral observer, but they agree on the meaning. In this case of a mutual error, the contract cannot be annulled again.
See also
The outdated jurisprudence of the Reichsgericht on the calculation error
Individual evidence
- ↑ Hanau District Court , NJW 1979, 721.
- ^ Decision of the Reichsgericht dated June 8, 1920, file number II 549/19, RGZ 99, 147.
