LEGAL+ NEWS
So-called. warning letters (cf. § 8 Para. 3 No. 2 UWG) are causing the economy a lot of trouble. Smaller companies or start-ups in particular often cannot afford to defend themselves. This overlooks the fact that a warning association is only authorized to pursue alleged infringements of competition law under strict conditions. This follows from Section 8 (3) No. 2 UWG:
“The claims arising from paragraph 1 are due to: (…)
2. associations with legal capacity for the promotion of commercial or independent professional interests, insofar as a significant number of entrepreneurs belong to them who sell goods or services of the same or a related kind on the same market, if they are able, in particular in terms of their personnel, material and financial resources, to actually perform their statutory tasks of pursuing commercial or independent professional interests and insofar as the infringement affects the interests of their members;”
This means:
A warning association may only take action in individual cases if:
it may count among its members a significant number of members who sell
goods or services of the same or a related kind on the same market.
In short: If a warning association wants to take action against an advertising agency, for example, it must generally have a considerable number of advertising agencies (or similar companies) among its members.
Regrettably, case law is quite generous when examining this generally strict requirement. However, this may also be due to the fact that the parties concerned do not question the right of the competition association “attacking” them to file an application or bring an action with the necessary tenacity. From my own experience, I can report on a case in which an internet search regarding alleged members led to astonishing findings:
It turned out that not a single one of the four members of the relevant industry listed could be verified. On the contrary: one of the alleged advertising agencies turned out to be a beauty clinic.
The lesson to be learned from this is that it is always worth questioning the information on the list of members from which every warning association derives its supposed authority to suspect competition law infringements!
LATEST ARTICLES
Degree of completion of the work
The standards relating to the right to refuse acceptance (Section 640 (1) sentence 2 BGB, Section 12 (3) VOB/B) state that acceptance of the work may not be refused due to insignificant defects. There is no statement on the required degree of completion of the work as a prerequisite for acceptance.
However, the question of what degree of completion the work must have reached in order to be considered ready for acceptance is very important, particularly in the case of plant construction, which is usually very complex.
Major deficiency in plant engineering
Answering the question of whether there is a significant defect is very difficult, especially in often very complex plant construction. The absence of major defects is the decisive prerequisite for acceptance. The latter has considerable legal and practical significance: the start of the warranty periods is regularly linked to this. In addition, the due date of a considerable part of the agreed remuneration generally depends on acceptance.
Formal acceptance under building law
Particularly in the case of complex (plant) construction projects, the contracting parties often agree – usually on the basis of the VOB/B – to carry out a so-called formal acceptance. The following article deals with the question of what such a formal acceptance is actually all about.
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
