display
Karlsruhe (dpa) - With a trick, lawyers wanted to help numerous motorists by revoking their leasing contract - but now nothing will come of it.
Because consumers generally have no right of withdrawal when leasing with kilometer billing.
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe clarified this in a model case.
So far, the legal situation has been unclear.
(Az. VIII ZR 36/20)
A different judgment would have been of considerable economic importance for the leasing company, as the presiding judge Karin Milger had said earlier in the hearing.
A large number of comparable proceedings are currently pending in the courts.
With the revocation, the plaintiffs often want to return all the installments and also do not want to pay for the interim use of the car.
display
When leasing the car, the customer does not buy the car, but pays monthly installments for its use over an agreed period, like a rental.
He then usually returns the car.
There are two models: Either it is agreed how many kilometers the customer is likely to drive.
Or it is determined how much the car should still be worth at the end of the term.
With both models, it can happen that the customer pays extra on billing.
In contrast to kilometer leasing, it was and is undisputed with residual value leasing that the customer has a right of withdrawal.
Such a right exists in many types of contract conclusion.
It is designed to protect consumers from making ill-considered decisions.
Normally, you have 14 days to let everything go through your head in peace - and to back off if you have any doubts.
For resourceful lawyers, one particular feature is of particular interest: If the consumer is not informed or not properly informed about his right of withdrawal, the 14-day period does not start at all.
The contract can then be revoked and reversed after years.
In technical jargon this is called the "withdrawal joker".
display
The case that the BGH judges have now decided is a typical example: the plaintiff had concluded his leasing contract at the beginning of 2015.
He declared the revocation in March 2018 - because, as he says, there was no mandatory information.
He asked the Mercedes Benz leasing company to return around 20,000 euros.
The Stuttgart courts had dismissed the lawsuit - quite rightly, as the BGH has now ruled.
A right of withdrawal is to be denied here "under every legally conceivable point of view".
The kilometer leasing does not meet the legal requirements.
The Civil Code (§ 506 BGB) provides for a right of withdrawal in three cases: if the leasing customer is obliged by contract to buy the car after the term;
if the leasing company is entitled to demand it in the end;
or if it is leased with a residual value guarantee.
This list is final, said Senate Chairwoman Milger.
The legislature was based on an EU directive and quite deliberately did not extend the right of withdrawal to all financing transactions.
display
Daimler did not comment on the specific case and only briefly commented on the verdict: "We are pleased that our legal opinion has been confirmed by the BGH," said a spokesman.
© dpa-infocom, dpa: 210224-99-577054 / 2
BGH notification on the judgment
Judgment of the OLG Stuttgart of October 29, 2019
ADAC information on leasing and the various models
ADAC on the right of withdrawal
Example for lawyer advertising for the "withdrawal joker"