Ruisdael case

The Ruisdael case is a classic case study from German civil law . It goes back to a decision of the Reichsgericht dated March 11, 1932. The focus is on the concept of error and the priority of warranty over avoidance .

facts

On January 18, 1928, the Berlin merchant Ernst Rössler acquired the oil painting Eichen am Wasser from the Neue Galerie Schünemann & Lange for a purchase price of 15,000 Reichsmarks . Both parties took the view that it was a picture by the Dutch painter Jacob Izaaksoon van Ruisdael . This also emerged from an expert opinion by Wilhelm von Bode that was enclosed with the painting.

The buyer now claimed that the picture did not come from Jacob I. van Ruisdael, but from his “far less famous cousin and imitator” Jacob Salomonszoon van Ruysdael , which is why he challenged the purchase contract on October 18, 1929 because of error and the purchase price plus interest demanded back. In court, the buyer failed in all instances.

Reasons for decision

The factual instances have established that it was a piece purchase . Bought "was the one picture physically put up for sale, with it handed over what was bought". The contractual item of purchase was therefore not a painting by Jacob Izaaksoon van Ruisdael, but the painting on display, which both parties assumed was by Jacob Izaaksoon van Ruisdael. In this way, the buyer was not given a presumably incorrect item ( aliud ), but a possibly defective item ( peius ).

The warranty claims of the buyer resulting from this possible defect in accordance with § 459 Paragraph 1 BGB a. F. would have already been statute-barred ( Section 477 (1) BGB old version). That is why the factual instances did not concern themselves with the question of whether the picture was made by Jacob I. van Ruisdael or Jacob S. van Ruysdael.

A contestation in accordance with Section 119, Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code, which is possible for a period of thirty years if it occurs immediately, is also out of the question. The Reichsgericht had already ruled in 1905 that a challenge due to a property error after the transfer of risk would be replaced by liability for material defects. This results from the legal concept lex specialis derogat legi generali , which means that a special law - here §§ 459 ff. BGB a. F. - takes precedence over the general law - here Section 119 (2) BGB.

literature

Christoph Krampe : Oaks on the water - The Ruisdael case RGZ 135, 339. In: Legal training . Year 2005, Issue 9, pp. 773–779.

Web links

Decision of the Imperial Court (Chair Prof. Dr. Stephan Lorenz)

Individual evidence

↑ Az. II ZR 307/31 ; RGZ 135, p. 339 ff.
↑ RGZ 61, 171; also Filippo Ranieri, Sales Law Warranty and Error Problem: Continuity and Discontinuity in the Judicature of the Imperial Court after 1900 .

[1] Az. II ZR 307/31 ; RGZ 135, p. 339 ff.

[2] RGZ 61, 171; also Filippo Ranieri, Sales Law Warranty and Error Problem: Continuity and Discontinuity in the Judicature of the Imperial Court after 1900 .