LEGAL+ NEWS
The Bundestag passes a massive restriction on contractual freedom. The Federal Ministry of Justice has thus prevailed with its plan to limit the terms of consumer contracts to a maximum of one year.
Read my article from September 6, 2019 on this now serious legislative proposal, especially with regard to the resulting highly questionable restrictions on contractual freedom.
You can download the draft law passed by the Bundestag here.
The bill to restrict freedom of contract
As I commented in my article from September 6, 2019, the (further) restriction on the possibility of concluding contracts with a commitment period of at least two years that has now been adopted represents a massive curtailment of contractual freedom. There is also no justification for this in the draft bill now before us. On the contrary, it reveals a considerable misunderstanding of freedom of contract and its positive significance for consumers and the economy. It also continues the political line of denying consumers their maturity. Significantly, the draft bill states:
“(…) In many areas where open-ended contracts used to be common, consumers are now often only offered contracts with a two-year term on good terms, which are automatically renewed if the consumer does not terminate them in good time. The restrictions on contract terms that were previously in place are no longer appropriate. The long contract commitment inhibits consumers from switching to another provider and thus competition. The contract extension clauses are overlooked or forgotten by consumers. By limiting the term to one year, shortening the automatic renewal period and providing a shorter notice period of one month, the aim is to give consumers more freedom of choice with regard to their contract. The aim is to strengthen the position of the contractual partner and promote competition. (…)”
Rating
The Federal Ministry of Justice should consider whether the law that has now been passed will actually achieve the opposite of what is supposedly intended. This is because the ban on longer terms massively restricts the previous options for drafting contracts. Whereas the parties involved were previously still able to agree on contracts tailored to their respective needs, the planned restrictions will in fact significantly limit competition and freedom of choice. The losers of the proposed legislation are therefore almost everyone involved. The “winners” are at best those consumers who “forget” notice periods. The worthiness of protecting this group seems highly questionable when you consider that those affected who have “forgotten” to terminate their contract after a two-year contract period had previously benefited from very attractive contract conditions in most cases. In future, thanks to this group of “forgetters”, the aforementioned attractive contract conditions will no longer be available to anyone.
LATEST ARTICLES

On the bias of judges in civil proceedings: If judges do not read a party’s pleadings, this can justify a motion for recusal!
Following on from my overview article on the application for recusal pursuant to Section 42 ZPO, I would like to report on an interesting ruling by the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe. According to this ruling, a judge’s failure to read the pleadings submitted by a party can give rise to concerns of bias. In the case in question, a judge had overlooked an application for recusal directed against him, as he had forwarded the pleading containing it unread to the opposing party for comment. This violates the so-called duty to wait pursuant to Section 47 (1) ZPO, according to which only “official acts that cannot be postponed” are permitted from the filing of an application for recusal until it has been dealt with.

BGH on the legal consequences of thwarting evidence
In legal disputes, it often happens that one party makes it difficult for the opposing party to provide evidence. In these cases, the question then arises as to whether and, if so, with what legal consequences it can be assumed that evidence has been obstructed.

Guide to procedural law: Easier way to claim damages for exhaust gas manipulation – On the BGH ruling of June 26, 2023 (Ref. Via ZR 335/21)
This article attempts to classify and evaluate the current ruling of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) of June 26, 2023 (Ref. Via ZR 335/21) on the subject of compensation for damages due to emissions manipulation by car manufacturers.
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

