Legal consequence error

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The legal consequence error (sometimes referred to in the plural as legal consequence error ) is a special case of content error , in which the legal transaction does not trigger the intended legal consequences, but rather the legal consequences that differ significantly from the intended ones. This group of errors is located in Section 119 (2) of the German Civil Code ( BGB) , which weakens the fundamental irrelevance of the error of motivation .

The dogmatics of the legal consequence error goes back to the case law of the Reichsgericht in 1916, which stated that "an error about the legal success to be achieved with a declaration of intent can also be an error about the content of the declaration of intent". It thus turned away from the fact that any error about the legal consequences of a legally relevant decision is irrelevant. However, this jurisprudence is to be distinguished from the cases in which the legal transaction has undetected and undesired side effects. The Federal Court of Justice later confirmed this view, based on the fact that the legal transaction carried out had significantly different effects than the intended ones.

In this respect, the BGH understands the contestation of an inheritance accepted by expiry of the deadline to be permissible and the error to be considerable if the contestant claims that he believed he would lose his right to a compulsory portion if he rejects the inheritance overloaded by legacies . In this regard, the court emphasized that the “declaration of acceptance of inheritance” and the “loss of the right to a compulsory portion” from Section 2306 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB) are of equal importance . The essential importance of the declaration of intent consists precisely in the striving for legal success, which, insofar as it is part of the declared legal transaction, is also part of the content of the declaration.

If the further legal consequence is included in the declaration itself, but there are internal contradictions and these cannot be resolved by interpretation , the declaration is ineffective due to perplexity .

See also

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

literature

  • Thomas Neuffer: The contestation of the declaration of intent due to error of legal consequence , Centaurus-Verlags-Gesellschaft, Pfaffenweiler 1991, ISBN 3-89085-378-1 .

Remarks

  1. ^ Otto Palandt : Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch . CH Beck, 73rd edition, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-64400-9 , § 119 no. 15th
  2. ^ A b Dieter Medicus , Jens Petersen : Civil law. A presentation on exam preparation , arranged according to the basis of entitlements , 25th edition, Verlag Franz Vahlen 2015, p. 57 ff. (58).
  3. ↑ a b RGZ 88, 278 (288).
  4. ↑ BGHZ 168, 210 ff.
  5. ↑ Compare RGZ 88, 278: With three registered mortgages, the first one has become the owner's mortgage. The owner therefore applies, on the one hand, to delete the owner's land charge from the first rank and, on the other hand, to relocate the third mortgage to this rank, which is legally impossible if the person entitled to the second mortgage does not have an effective declaration of abandonment required under Section 875 (1) BGB (principle of sliding rank ). The perplexity of the explanation is that the cancellation of the owner's land charge should not trigger the automatic move-up of the second mortgage.