Rechtsprechung

  • Rechtssachenbeschreibung
    • Nationale Kennung: 10 Ob 367/97m
    • Mitgliedstaat: Österreich
    • Gebräuchliche Bezeichnung:N/A
    • Art des Beschlusses: Sonstiges
    • Beschlussdatum: 04/11/1997
    • Gericht: Oberster Gerichtshof
    • Betreff:
    • Kläger:
    • Beklagter:
    • Schlagworte: Rechtsprechung Österreich Deutsch
  • Artikel der Richtlinie
    Unfair Contract Terms Directive, ANNEX I, 1.
  • Leitsatz
    1. Durch § 6 Abs 2 Z 2 KSchG soll verhindert werden, dass anstelle des Unternehmers dem Konsumenten ein nach dem Vertrag unbekannter Dritter aufgedrängt wird, was aber der Fall ist, wenn ein Dritter im Hinblick auf die nach § 6 Abs 2 Z 2 KSchG unzulässige Vertragsbestimmung eigene Rechte geltend macht; der Dritte hätte zu beweisen, dass diese Vertragsbestimmung zwischen dem Unternehmer und dem Konsumenten im Einzelnen ausgehandelt wurde.
  • Sachverhalt
    The contract – agreed between firm G and the defendant (a consumer) – contained terms and conditions for sale and delivery, which, inter alia, entitled the firm to transfer the contract agreed to a third party not named in that contract. At the same time, the terms and conditions for sale and delivery entitled firm G to instruct sub-contractors to make deliveries to the defendant under the agreed terms and conditions. It also stated that the sub-contractors could settle charges directly with the defendant. The plaintiff, a sub-contractor working for firm G, made a delivery to the defendant as instructed by the firm and then demanded payment from the defendant citing the terms and conditions for sale and delivery.
  • Rechtsfrage
  • Entscheidung

    Following the extraordinary appeal lodged by the plaintiff, the Supreme Court (OGH) examined the facts of the case in light of § 6 para 2 line 2 KSchG. It ruled that the plaintiff in this case was lodging his own claims under the contract agreed between firm G and the defendant as if he were the defendant’s contractual partner to whom the rights and responsibilities of that contract had been transferred. However, § 6 para 2 line 2 KSchG was designed to ensure that a consumer could not be forced to deal with a third party not named in the contract instead of the supplier. This was, however, precisely what was happening in this instance; the third party was exercising his own rights by invoking the contract term that was not permissible under § 6 para 2 line 2 KSchG. Thus, in the OGH’s view, the plaintiff would have had to prove that the relevant contract term had been individually negotiated, as only then would it be valid.

    Volltext: Volltext

  • Verbundene Rechtssachen

    Keine Ergebnisse verfügbar

  • Rechtsliteratur

    Keine Ergebnisse verfügbar

  • Ergebnis