LEGAL+ NEWS
In my blog post “Can so-called warning associations do anything? – On the liability for damages of warning associations such as the Association of Social Competition (VSW)” I had already reported from practical experience on the fact that so-called warning associations – covered by the courts – are still acting to the detriment of market participants.
With its recent action against influencers, the Association of Social Competition (VSW) has attracted a lot of media attention and thus – unintentionally – finally brought movement to the question of what warning associations may and may not do. The “Handelsblatt” has now – also with my support – in its latest weekend edition of March 15/16/17, 2019 provided valuable clarification regarding the questionable actions of the VSW.
The legal consequence of the actions of VSW and, of course, of any other warning association can be, as I have explained in my article mentioned above above, may include an obligation to pay damages to injured market participants.
LATEST ARTICLES
Up to €10,000 before the local court: why it goes wrong
Up to €10,000 in the local court – a mistake with an announcement. The planned reform of the amount in dispute will shift masses of proceedings from the regional courts to the local courts. Sounds like a relief – but will have the opposite effect.
Contract law: Stuttgart 21 and the speech clause – a lesson in clear contract drafting
Sometimes a single sentence decides billions. This is exactly what happened with the Stuttgart 21 project. At the center of the legal dispute was a short contractual provision – the so-called “speech clause”.
Breach of an international jurisdiction agreement can result in liability for damages! – On the ruling of the BGH from 17.10.2019 (Ref. III ZR 42/19)
International agreements on jurisdiction, especially if they are to have exclusive validity, generally have the purpose of protecting the party benefiting from the agreement from the often very considerable costs of a legal dispute in a foreign country.
Unfortunately, however, it is not uncommon for the other contracting party to suddenly no longer want to know about the jurisdiction agreement in the event of a dispute. The background to such a dishonest approach is – obviously – not least the potential for blackmail associated with such an approach. This is because the party that finds itself – in breach of the jurisdiction agreement – exposed to a foreign lawsuit is regularly forced to take action abroad through lawyers in order to avoid legal disadvantages. This in turn is often very expensive, with the USA being the most prominent example.
CONTACT
+49 (40) 57199 74 80
+49 (170) 1203 74 0
Neuer Wall 61 D-20354 Hamburg
kontakt@legal-plus.eu
Benefit from my active network!
I look forward to our networking.
This post is also available in: DE
