The University of Texas at Austin   School of Law

Main menu:

Contract Law — The Formation of Contracts

Date Citation Note
25.11.2004 BGH V ZR 13/04 V. Civil Senate

If the actual transfer of property to a minor, in and of itself, is purely advantageous in legal terms, his declaration of agreement to the transfer does not need the approval of his statutory representative or other body entrusted with his care, and this is true even if the underlying agreement contains some onerous obligations. In such a case the transactions giving rise to the obligation to transfer and the actual transfer agreement should be appraised quite separately.
§§ 107, 873, 1909 BGB

The transfer of land to a minor is purely advantageous in legal terms even if the land is burdened by a real charge. The same is true where there is a usufruct, provided that the usufructuary is to bear any exceptional repairs or improvements and any unusual burdens on the land.
§§ 107, 1030, 1191 BGB

The fact that the transferee of land is subject to the normal public land charges does not constitute a legal disadvantage in the sense of §107 BGB.
§107 BGB

03.11.2004 BGH VIII ZR 395/03 VIII. Civil Senate Since contracts of sale made by means of internet-auction are formed by offer and acceptance under §145 ff. BGB and not by a 'Zuschlag' (hammer-blow) under §156 BGB, the consumers right to withdraw from a contract with a trader is not excluded by §312 d (4) no. 5 BGB.
§ 312 d (4) BGB
21.01.2004 BGH XII ZR 214/00 XII. Civil Senate §a) When does a declaration of intention sent by Fax "arrive" ("zugehen"), if the addressee, who must receive it, is away on holiday?b) What is the proper construction of a term in a lease that notice to determine it is to be sent by registered letter?127 BGB (pre-2001 version) and § 130(1)
07.11.2001 BGH NJW 2002, 363 VIII. Civil Senate (VIII ZR 13/01)  
07.11.2001 BGH VIII ZR 13/01 VIII. Civil Senate Formation and validity of sales on the internet.
§§145 ff. BGB
01.10.1999 BGH NJW 1999, 3704 V. Civil Senate (V ZR 168/98)  
29.06.1999 BGH NJW 1999, 2883 XI. Civil Senate (XI ZR 277/98)  
29.03.1996 BGH NJW 1996, 1884 V. Civil Senate (V ZR 332/94)  
29.02.1996 BGH NJW 1996, 1467 = BGHZ 132, 119 IX. Civil Senate (IX ZR 153/95)  
18.05.1995 BGHZ 130, 19 X. Civil Senate  
23.06.1994 BAG NZA 1994, 1080 (2 AZR 617/93)  
17.06.1991 BGH NJW-RR 1991, 1241 II. Civil Senate (II ZR 171/90)  
12.11.1986 BGHZ 99, 101 VII. Civil Senate  
09.10.1986 BGH NJW-RR 1987, 144 VII. Civil Senate (VII ZR 245/85)  
20.03.1985 BGH NJW 1985, 1838
VIII. Civil Senate
03.05.1984 RGZ 144, 289 IV. Civil Senate  
22.02.1984 BGHZ 90, 198 VIII. Civil Senate  
19.03.1980 OLG Köln
RBKR 1980, 270
BB 1980, 1237
AZ 2 U 95/79
03.11.1976 BGHZ 67, 271 VIII. Civil Senate (VIII ZR 140/75) §§ 130, 132, 242 BGB
18.01.1976 BGHZ 66, 51
VIII. Civil Senate
(VIII ZR 246/74)
Gemüseblatt-decision
= NJW 1976, 712
= JZ 1976, 776
= VersR 1976, 589 (with approving note by Kreuzer)
§§ 278, 328 BGB
20.11.1975 BGH NJW 1976, 801
Anti-Trust Senate
24.10.1975 OLG Hamm NJW 1976, 1212  
31.07.1975 OLG Braunschweig NJW 1976, 570  
12.06.1975 BGH NJW 1975, 1774
X. Civil Senate
20.03.1974 BGH NJW 1974, 991 VIII. Civil Senate
21.04.1972 BGH NJW 1972, 1189 V. Civil Senate  
21.04.1972 BGH NJW 1972, 1189
V. Civil Senate
05.04.1971 BGHZ 56, 81 VII. Civil Senate  
09.07.1970 BGHZ 54, 236 VII. Civil Senate (VII ZR 70/68) § 346 HGB
27.01.1965 BGH NJW 1965, 965 VIII. Civil Senate  
16.12.1964 BGH NJW 1965, 387 VIII. Civil Senate  
02.04.1964 BGHZ 41, 271 Anti-Trust Senate (KZR 10/62) § 26 II GWB
§ 1 MilchFettG
§§ 154, 315 BGB
15.11.1962 BAG NJW 1963, 554 II. Civil Senate  
05.10.1961 BGHZ 36, 30 VII. Civil Senate (VII ZR 207/60) Idealheim- decision §§ 164, 179, 812 BGB
08.04.1957 BGH NJW 1957, 1105 III. Civil Senate  
22.06.1956 BGHZ 21, 102 I. Civil Senate (I ZR 198/54)  
20.06.1952 BGHZ 6, 330 V. Civil Senate (V ZR 34/51) § 37 II DGO
§ 276 BGB
12.02.1952 BGHZ 5, 111 I. Civil Senate (I ZR 96/51) §§ 157, 167 BGB
07.11.1931 RGZ 133, 388 V. Civil Senate  
08.04.1931 RGZ 124, 81 VI. Civil Senate  
25.06.1929 RGZ 125, 68 VII. Civil Senate  
21.05.1927 RGZ 117, 121 V. Civil Senate (V 476/26) Edelmannswort -decision §§ 313, 242 BGB
12.07.1922 RGZ 105, 256 III. Civil Senate  
05.04.1922 RGZ 104, 265 I. Civil Senate  
03.12.1920 RGZ 101, 47 VII. Civil Senate  
08.06.1920 RGZ 99, 147  
07.12.1911 RGZ 78, 239 VI. Civil Senate (VI 240/11) Linoleumrollen -decision = JW 1912, 191 Claimant bought items in defendant's store and went to look for linoleum; assistant pulled two rolls aside which fell and struck claimant and her child; purchase not made
Defendant liable for fault of assistant under § 278 BGB as he acted for defendant (§ 164; § 54 HGB)
Legal relationship in preparation for purchase so both parties owed duty to care for health and property of other
Unjust for defendant only to be liable under § 831 BGB
§ 278, 831 BGB
§§ 54, 164 HGB
08.02.1902 RGZ 50, 191 I. Civil Senate