Calculation error

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The calculation error is an error about circumstances due to which the declarer incorrectly states a service because he has miscalculated, measured or misjudged. If he had not been mistaken about the circumstances (for example incorrect calculation requirements), he would not have expressed the incorrect declaration of intent . In this constellation, the person explaining has not only explained himself wrongly because he has made a mistake or made a promise.

The calculation error is generally irrelevant as a motive error in German civil law , since incorrect or unchecked calculations are legally attributed to the declaring party and at the risk of the person making the declaration. A distinction is made between internal and external (open) calculation errors.

Internal calculation error

In the case of an internal calculation error (also a hidden calculation error ), only the calculation result is disclosed to the recipient of the declaration , but not the calculation basis that led to this result. The internal calculation error is therefore an error in the decision-making process of the declarer. As a pure motive error, it does not entitle to contest, which is why miscalculations are at the expense of the person making the declaration.

Example: A is assembling a computer. When compiling the price for the components, he incorrectly adds up, so that the purchase price is not set at the due 1000 euros, but only at 800 euros. A challenge is excluded. Nothing else was explained than what should be explained. A wanted to declare 800 euros and did so in the form of the price display.

External (open) calculation error

When open calculation error is next to the calculation result and the calculation away disclosed. The treatment of the open calculation error was legally disputed. The Reichsgericht still assumed that the disclosed calculation bases were part of the declaration. If the declaration and the content of the declaration do not match, there is, by way of exception, a ground for avoidance in accordance with Section 119 (1), 1st alt. BGB given, since a content error would in any case exist if the calculation or its basis was communicated to the other party or at least made clear during the contract negotiations. The Reichsgericht assumed that the calculations were not just about “internal considerations”, but part of the declaration itself. This view is almost unanimously rejected in the legal literature and by the Federal Court of Justice today, because the will and the declaration actually coincided. The Supreme Court has been cited, it failed to recognize that the inclusion of the calculation basis in the statement on the level of a faulty will education lies and not on an erroneous will utterance (Will transmission according § 120 ), which is why only an inconsiderable mistake vorliege the subject.

Interpretation priority

Today attempts are being made to take account of the interests of the parties by giving priority to interpretation . If the calculation method is the main focus of the calculation by virtue of interpretation , the hidden but real will of the explanatory gains immediate effectiveness. The incorrectly reproduced calculation result then only represents a harmless false description. If, however, the result has priority, the declaration made applies. If both parties assume incorrect calculation facts, the legal figure of the “lack of the subjective business basis ” sometimes helps , Section 313 (2) BGB (mutual motive error). If the logical contradiction between the calculation presented and the result allegedly resulting from the calculation cannot be resolved, the declaration of intent is perplexed and therefore ineffective.

Compensation for breach of ancillary obligations

In connection with a calculation error, liability from culpa in contrahendo can always be considered. In particular, the BGH affirmed a breach of ancillary obligations (Section 241 (2) BGB) by a public-law client if the client awards the contract to the erring bidder (and thus leads to the conclusion of the contract), although he is aware of the error of the other part is located. However, the threshold of what is economically reasonable must be exceeded (if the consideration to the bidder "absolutely can no longer be accepted", "no approximately equivalent consideration"). Due to the principles of dolo agit (§ 242 BGB), the client may then be prevented from asserting the performance claim against the bidder.

See also

  • Legal consequence error (further case group on the fundamental irrelevance of the motive error)

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ RGZ 55, 367 (369 f.).
  2. ↑ BGH NJW 1998, 3192 (3193).
  3. ↑ Preis / Prütting / Sachs / Weigend : The exam exam. Original cases - sample solutions - notes , 4th edition, p. 15.
  4. ↑ RGZ 64, 266 (268)
  5. ↑ RGZ 105, 406 (so-called "ruble case" from 1922: error about the exchange rate of the ruble; the plaintiff advanced 30,000 soviet rubles to the defendant, for which the defendant gave promissory notes in the amount of 7,500 Reichsmarks, which at a correctly calculated exchange rate would have justified an amount of 300 Reichsmarks)
  6. ^ Karl Larenz / Manfred Wolf : General part of civil law . 9th edition. 2004, § 36 No. 65
  7. ↑ Werner Flume , General Part of Civil Law. (Vol. 2, The legal transaction, 4th edition 1992, ISBN 3-540-55211-1 ) Springer, Berlin 1992, § 23 paragraph 4 e.)
  8. ↑ Dieter Leipold : BGB I: Introduction and general part , p. 259.
  9. ↑ a b BGHZ 139, 177 ff (184 ff.).
  10. ↑ for example: BGH, MDR 1960, 580.
  11. ↑ Jens Petersen : Exam repetitorium general law of obligations .
  12. ↑ BGH, judgment of November 11, 2014 - X ZR 32/14.