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
The court’s duty to provide information in civil proceedings
It is not uncommon for courts to simply remain silent until the first hearing date – in the worst case, years can pass until then. As a result, the parties do not know where they stand for a long time and eagerly await the hearing date, from which they hope to finally learn the court’s point of view. It is often only during the court hearing that judges then issue so-called judicial instructions in accordance with Section 139 (2) and (3) ZPO. This procedure is unlawful!
Reference to USB stick in the application
Our latest article analyzes the BGH ruling of 14.07.2022, which for the first time allows reference to a USB stick in the claim. Find out how this ruling expands the scope of digitalization in civil proceedings and what consequences it has for practice.
Action dismissed as “currently unfounded”
Disputes under construction law in particular often concern the due date of remuneration claims, e.g. because acceptance as a prerequisite for payment is questionable. In these cases, it is not uncommon for judgments to be handed down in which a claim is dismissed “as currently unfounded”.
The BGH recently stated in detail that in such cases the res judicata effect of the dismissing judgment also includes the grounds for the judgment, insofar as the other – i.e. the currently not missing – claim requirements have been positively established or affirmed.
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
