Young bull case

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The young bull case is a frequently discussed case study in German jurisprudence and is based on a judgment of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) of January 11, 1971 with the file number VIII ZR 261/69. The case is published in the rulings of the BGH under reference BGHZ 55, 176 .

The judgment made it clear: Anyone who only acquires ownership of an item through processing ( Section 950 BGB ) is not protected against the condition of intervention of the old owner because he had received the property through a (paid) service by the thief. Dogmatically, the rules of good faith acquisition from unauthorized persons ( § 932 - § 935 BGB) apply to claims under enrichment law ( § 812 - § 822 BGB).

facts

A thief stole two young bulls from the plaintiff and sold them for DM 1,701 to a sausage manufacturer who assumed that the thief owned the animals. The sausage manufacturer used the animals in his meat factory. The lower courts condemned the sausage manufacturer, as requested, to pay the farmer DM 1,701 compensation. With the approved appeal by the BGH, the sausage manufacturer sought dismissal. The farmer requested that the appeal be rejected.

Summary of the judgment

The official guiding principle of the judgment reads: "Anyone who buys a stolen thing in good faith and processes it in such a way that he becomes the owner of the new thing in accordance with Section 950 of the German Civil Code (BGB) owes the owner of the stolen thing payment in money in accordance with Section 951 (1) sentence 1, without being allowed to credit the purchase price paid to the thief. "

Claims against the thief

Claims for damages by the farmer and the manufacturer against the thief were not sued, but the reason was given . The farmer was able to exercise this from the owner-owner relationship ( Section 989 , Section 990, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 BGB), tort law ( Section 992 , Section 823 ) and appropriate self-management ( Section 687, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1, Section 678 BGB) take advantage of. The manufacturer had a claim for damages from the contract as well as from the offense.

In practice, however, such claims are not infrequently worthless because the thief either cannot be found or, due to a lack of assets, cannot meet the claims for damages. In the young bull case, it therefore came down to which of the two other parties involved had to bear the damage, i.e. who had to bear the risk of the thief's bankruptcy .

Claims against the manufacturer

First of all, the BGH determined that the manufacturer could not become the owner by purchasing the animals . An acquisition according to § 929 S. 1 BGB was ruled out because the thief was not entitled to dispose. A purchase in good faith according to § 929 S. 1, § 932 Abs. 1 S. 1 BGB was also not possible because the animals were stolen. In accordance with Section 935 (1) sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), property cannot be acquired in good faith from stolen items , even if the purchaser is unaware of the theft. This is based on the fact that the law exceptionally subordinates the interests of legal transactions to the owner's need for protection if he involuntarily loses his direct possession of the thing.

Blocking effect of Section 993 (1) BGB

The court then examined a claim for compensation under Section 951 (1) sentence 1 BGB in conjunction with Section 812 (1) sentence 1 alternative 2 BGB. Such a claim initially presupposes that these provisions are applicable. Since the farmer was the owner and the manufacturer was owner without ownership, there was an owner-owner relationship between the two. With Section 993 (1) BGB, this limits the liability of the honest owner by only making him liable for damages and surrender of use in accordance with Section 987 - Section 1003 BGB . The BGH found that the blocking effect of Section 993 BGB did not conflict with the manufacturer's liability under Section 951 BGB, since this provision does not constitute a claim for damages, but a claim to enrichment. Claims for enrichment are not blocked by § 993 BGB. Section 951 BGB was thus applicable.

Loss of rights according to § 946 - § 950 BGB

A claim from § 951 BGB presupposes that the claimant has suffered a loss of rights according to § 946 - § 950 BGB. The manufacturer became the owner of the meat products in accordance with Section 950 (1) sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) by letting the meat of the animals be processed in his company after they were slaughtered. Because through this he made a new movable thing out of the animals.

§ 950 BGB aims to clearly assign ownership of the newly manufactured item. The regulation initially resolves the conflict between the owner of the raw material and the manufacturer in favor of the latter: Because of his labor and capital investment, the manufacturer becomes the owner of the new item by law.

By processing the young bulls, these were lost. Therefore the farmer lost his property to them.

Legal reference in the law of enrichment

As a result, according to Section 951 (1) sentence 1 of the German Civil Code, the farmer can demand payment in cash - the property situation remains unchanged - in accordance with the provisions on the surrender of unjust enrichment. In the opinion of the BGH and the prevailing doctrine, this reference is a legal reference . A claim under Section 951 (1) sentence 1 BGB presupposes that all of the factual requirements of Section 812 (1) sentence 1 BGB are met.

Whether § 951 only refers to the intervention condition or whether it also includes the performance condition is disputed in jurisprudence, but not decisive in the case of the Federal Court of Justice, since the farmer did not provide a service to the manufacturer. Therefore, the BGH examined whether the elements of the condition of intervention from § 812 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Alt. 2 BGB exist. To do this, the manufacturer must have obtained something in some other way at the farmer's expense without any legal reason.

Something obtained in some other way at the farmer's expense

The manufacturer acquired ownership of the meat products. This acquisition happened in another way if it was not made through performance.

If there are service relationships within a multi-person relationship, the benefits under enrichment law must be reversed due to the priority of the performance conditions within these relationships. This is to ensure that contracts are only processed with the respective contractual partner; One should not have to fear enrichment claims of unknown third parties.

Although the purchase contract between the thief and the manufacturer established a service relationship, the latter only acquired ownership of the young bulls; the thief could not obtain property for the manufacturer because of Section 935 (1) BGB. Thus the manufacturer did not acquire property through the thief's work, but rather obtained it himself through processing. Thus the farmer's claim against the manufacturer was not blocked by a service relationship. The manufacturer thus obtained ownership of the meat products in some other way.

This was done at the expense of the farmer, who lost his ownership of the animals as a result of the processing.

Illegality

The enrichment claim also requires that the manufacturer has acquired ownership of the meat in relation to the farmer without any legal reason .

No legal basis arose from § 950 BGB: This provision only wants to regulate the property situation, but not to decide who should bear the final economic advantage of the processing. If it were legal grounds, the reference of § 951 BGB in the enrichment law would also mean that the offense of § 951 BGB could not be fulfilled. Even the contract between the manufacturer and the thief does not constitute a legal reason for the acquisition of property vis-à-vis the farmer, since it only takes effect between the thief and the manufacturer due to the relativity of the obligations .

The Federal Court of Justice secured these results by means of an evaluative comparison: The rules of good faith of § § 932 ff. BGB regulate the conflict of interest that arises when an unauthorized person sells a foreign thing in his own name to a third party in good faith, in favor of the third party in the case that the property has not been lost to the owner. In this case the third party becomes the owner according to §§ 932 ff. BGB and may keep the property without being obliged to compensate the previous owner. Here, however, the farmer has lost the matter through theft. In this case, the law resolves the conflict of interest in favor of the owner who does not lose his property. The contract with the thief does not justify the farmer's loss of property - while the farmer could not choose the thief, the manufacturer can freely choose his contractual partner. Nothing changes in this legal valuation, just because due to processing or mixing according to § 946 to § 948 , § 950 BGB, ownership later passes to the bona fide third party, here the manufacturer. The acquisition of property by the third party is not based on this sale transaction , which, on the contrary, § 935 BGB denies any legal validity, but solely on §§ 946 ff. BGB. The manufacturer has thus acquired ownership without legal grounds, so that the prerequisites for the enrichment claim are met.

Legal consequences

The offense of § 951, § 812 Paragraph 1 Clause 1 Alt. 2 BGB was fulfilled. Therefore the farmer could demand compensation from the manufacturer for the loss of his property to the animals.

The manufacturer objected, however, that he was depleted in the amount of the purchase price paid in accordance with Section 818 (3) of the German Civil Code and could therefore not be claimed in this amount. According to Section 818 (3) of the German Civil Code, the opposing party is not liable if he is no longer enriched. This is to prevent the opponent from being financially worse off as a result of the condition than he was before the enrichment occurred. The BGH rejected the objection of depletion, arguing that the claim to enrichment has replaced the claim to surrender from § 985 BGB; Section 951 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB) is therefore a continuing legal claim to Section 985 of the German Civil Code. The manufacturer could not have set the purchase price against his surrender obligation under § 985 BGB. Therefore, this is not possible with Section 951 BGB. Similarly, the BGH ruled in earlier rulings on claims for enrichment in the event of unauthorized consumption or unauthorized sale by the owner. The objection of depletion did not conflict with the liability of the manufacturer.

See also

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Fritz Baur, Jürgen Baur, Rolf Stürner: Property Law . 4th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2009, ISBN 978-3-406-54479-8 , § 52, Rn. 46. Caroline Meller-Hannich: § 935 , Rn. 1. In: Alfred Keukenschrijver, Gerhard Ring, Herbert Grziwotz (Eds.) : Nomos Commentary BGB: Property Law . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1103-1 .
  2. ^ Herbert Roth: The owner-owner relationship . In: Juristische Schulung 2003, p. 937.
  3. ↑ a b c BGHZ 55, 176 (178).
  4. ↑ Jens Füller: § 950 , Rn. 1–2. In: Reinhard Gaier (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 8th edition. tape 8 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2020, ISBN 978-3-406-72608-8 .
  5. ↑ a b c BGHZ 55, 176 (177).
  6. ↑ BGHZ 17, 236 . BGHZ 35, 356 (359-360). BGHZ 40, 272 (276). BGHZ 55, 176 (177).
  7. ↑ Christian Mauch: § 951 , Rn. 3. In: Alfred Keukenschrijver, Gerhard Ring, Herbert Grziwotz (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Property Law . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1103-1 .
  8. ↑ Jens Füller: § 951 , Rn. 3. In: Reinhard Gaier (Hrsg.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 8th edition. tape 8 : Property law: §§ 854–1296: WEG, ErbbauRG . CH Beck, Munich 2020, ISBN 978-3-406-72608-8 .
  9. ^ Stephan Lorenz: Basic knowledge - civil law: enrichment law - basic types of conditions . In: Juristische Schulung 2012, p. 777 (778).
  10. ^ Stephan Lorenz: Basic knowledge - civil law: enrichment law - basic types of conditions . In: Legal Training 2012, p. 777.
  11. ↑ Stephan Lorenz: Third-party relationships under enrichment law . In: Juristische Schulung 2003, p. 729 (731).
  12. ↑ BGHZ 1, 75 (81). BGH, judgment of October 23, 1980, IVa ZR 45/80 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1981, p. 277.
  13. ↑ Marco Staake: Statutory Obligations . Springer, Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-642-30093-6 , pp. 138 .
  14. ^ Walter Wilburg: Interplay of forces in the structure of the law of obligations . In: Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 163 (1963), p. 346 (348).
  15. ↑ BGHZ 55, 176 (179).
  16. ↑ BGHZ 9, 333 ; BGHZ 14, 7 ; BGH, judgment of September 30, 1970, VIII ZR 221/68 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1970, p. 2059.