In the diesel scandal, Mercedes buyers did not lose any claims for damages when they took out their car loan, even if they did so as entrepreneurs. It makes no difference whether the customer acted as an entrepreneur or as a consumer, the BGH “Diesel Senate” ruled on Monday in Karlsruhe (Az. VIa ZR 155/23). In principle, the BGH – in the case of a consumer – had already declared a corresponding clause in the loan agreements of the Mercedes-Benz Bank to be invalid in April because it was too broad (Az. VIa ZR 1517/22).
It also affects claims that customers incur if they exercise their right of withdrawal after concluding a loan agreement. This unlawfully worsens the position of buyers. The plaintiff in this case had signed a financing contract when buying the car, which stated that the borrower would assign current and future claims against Daimler to the bank as security – “regardless of the legal reason”. The Stuttgart Higher Regional Court was of the opinion that the man was no longer entitled to sue Mercedes-Benz for allegedly illegal exhaust technology. The BGH judges saw things differently and overturned the verdict.
In the current case, too, the plaintiff, who had bought two new cars under his company, was rebuffed before the Stuttgart Regional Court and the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court. There must now be renegotiated. According to the BGH, the court of appeal will now have to clarify whether the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for tort. (dpa/swi)
From the data center:
2023-07-03 17:48:09
#Mercedes #exclude #companies #compensation
