In the case in question, the OGH held that the two agreements governing the calculation of the repayment figure were at odds. The calculation method cited in the insurance quote and that contained in the terms and conditions of the insurance package were contradictory and could not be reconciled. In addition, the “short-term rate”, clearly implicit in the terms and conditions of insurance, was utterly unclear. Thus, the assumption had to be that the parties had not reached an adequate agreement on how to calculate the repayment and that the contract term in question had to be regarded as invalid. This did not lead to the conclusion that the entire insurance contract was null and void because the repayment agreement between the two parties was merely a secondary agreement. The fact that it was invalid did not mean that the remaining contract was without meaning or purpose for both sides.
In conclusion, the OGH argued that, with regard to the “defined”-“definable” requirement, § 6 para 3 KSchG affords the consumer protection where clearly “defined” or “definable” contract terms are used, but where the consumer is unable to understand fully the scope of the terms on account of his commercial inexperience. However, if a contract term, as in this case, is not defined or definable from the very outset, then the protection afforded by the KSchG does not apply at all.