New Verdict From The 11 To The Eligibility Of Residual Value Special Offers

Law firm Andrea Sautter informs about new judgment of the District Court judgment Stuttgart from the 11 to the eligibility of residual value offers on the 11 to the eligibility of residual value offers. The law offices of Andrea Sautter informs what has changed through this judgment. If a residual value proposition promptly goes to the injured after a traffic accident and he has not yet sold his car, he needs to this offer yourself have, if it is otherwise content acceptable. Content acceptable principle is a binding offer, the injured party by means of a call at a specified phone number can assume and where a collector the vehicle for the injured free of charge after consultation with this pick and paid cash.(Principles of the Amtsgericht Stuttgart). The expert opinion of the plaintiff side had a residual value of EUR 50 for the totally damaged vehicle. The opposing insurance had the claimant but a binding offer of residual value a non local Aufkaufers submit to over 870 EUR. This offer was acceptable in terms of content, according to local Court Stuttgart, because there was a binding purchase offer in which the vehicle guaranteed free of charge should be picked up from the present location and paid.

To accept a call at the phone number was sufficient. It doesn’t matter that the offer not from the area of the plaintiff came because the offer donors would have picked up the vehicle and no higher costs or greater uncertainty would imposed on the claimant, as at an offer from the regional market. The offer was also time still acceptable. Anyway, as long as the claimant has not yet sold his vehicle after a traffic accident, he must be adhere to a residual value proposition, which promptly and in otherwise acceptable way leads to the wrongdoer or whose insurance him. Thus the victim must then, if he his car cheaper sold to access of such a purchase offer on an other collector, the difference (here: 820,00 EUR) by the opposing Insurance can be drawn off. Contact: Law firm Andrea of Sachin owner: Andrea SAUTTER Wackerstein road 32 72793 Pfullingen Tel: 07121/506252 fax: 07121/576257 email: Web site:

Amendment Act

Also do not belong to the modernisation costs the costs were financed with government grants, the pages of the Federal Office for Economics and export control and the KfW (Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau) provide information about each topics renovation, renewable energy, encouraging. Interest decrees or benefits from public authorities (insb. KfW-Darlehen) are taken into account for the benefit of the lessee. Already in the modernization announcement the landlord must call the estimated additional costs specific amounts for the expected rent increases and also after completion of the energetic modernisation. This requires a very careful planning of measures and assessment of future energy needs compared to generally accepted flat-rate values for the components used and previous costs. Exceed: actual amounts for the rent increase expected previously supplied costs by more than 10%, are can tenants, if necessary, a further increase impossible hardness reasons aside, and the funding considerably impeded the modernization. This happens quickly, if compelling DIN and VDE regulations to higher costs or delay the conversion time, which have not been followed during the planning, because without further involvement of specialized trades was planned or have been obtained cost estimates via phone or email or visit.

For this reason, it is advisable to include the tenant already in the framework of planning also for landlords. In addition to provisions for the energetic modernisation, the landlord and tenant Amendment Act already contains a number of other new, so a partial cap the rent increases, new provisions for termination and eviction from apartments in arrears with rent and deposit and the ability to an apartment through injunction, and thus to be clear before a judgment. These and other topics in the coming days as other articles follow the author. The above article reflects the insight and opinion as of the author shortly after entry into force of the regulations. It eliminates the need for a legal advice in individual cases under any circumstances and is not evidenced in particular by the case-law to the new law. A different interpretation of the rules can be excluded so due to the mentioned uncertainties. Lawyer Wiebke Meyer-Arndt

Aleksandar Silic

Cologne regional court denied the applicability of 97a II copyright in computer game that has Cologne regional court in a recent decision by 10.01.2011 (cf. LG Cologne, decision by 10.01.2011, AZ.: 28 O 421/10) in the context of a legal aid application again the existence of a significant violation of law in the meaning of 97a (2) UrhG denies. The applicant made injunctive and legal costs against the connection owner due to unauthorized making available of computer game B”in a peer-to-peer network claims. The defendant connection owner affiliated applied for legal aid, which was rejected due to lack of success of the intended legal defense. The competent Chamber saw one of the defendants in the field-run possible EUR 100,-Cap for Attorney’s fees as omitted after summary examination in addition to the requirements of the fault liability. For the disputed breach, accessible making of a computer game, to the public if it were not a substantial Infringement of rights.

The provision of section 97a, para 2 is an exception provision, which is basically interpreted strictly. A minor violation of the law could be adopted only in particularly bearing cases. For adjusting a computer game could be discussed given the considerable effort which will operate in the programming and marketing of computer game and the risk of imitation not of the qualitative irrelevance. This recent decision of the regional court of Cologne is not surprising and is part of the decisions handed down in the past to 97a UrhG. The court sees a high substantial interference as given here alone in the fact that the contested file was a computer game. Thereby it supports this finding on the significant programming and marketing effort of the game itself, without going to the specific circumstances of the contested infringement. While it plays an essential role, what time and what amounts of data via the relevant Internet connection were made available and whether the video game at the time of the offence was ever yet successfully marketed. These circumstances are on the question of whether the rights holder has been severely in his rights, always include our opinion. Your Aleksandar Silic, LL.M you will find the detailed reasoning of the District Court.

Leases: No Arbitrary Eviction By The Landlord

The unauthorized evacuation a no-fault liability for damages of the tenant threatens the landlord. If a tenancy which is ever finished, is the lessee pursuant to 546 BGB shall specify out the leased property to the landlord. The landlord has a claim against the tenant on clearance and release of the leased property. (Source: Boy Scouts). Unfortunately it happens time and again that a tenant not voluntarily releases the leased property upon the termination of the lease. The question then is whether and how the landlord can enforce its expressly enshrined repossessions and issuing claim against the tenant. If the tenant does not voluntarily gives the leased property, there is only one legitimate way to enforce the repossessions – and publishing claim of the lessor perspective author working particularly in the law of tenancy in the LK Verden: it must first imposed a corresponding eviction. If bound by a judgment or a settlement at the end of the legal proceedings of the tenant the rent thing is to clean, but always still does not voluntarily comply with this obligation, is to apply for the eviction of the bailiff.

The eviction is the subject, by the costs of the Court and any m.j. determine value, usually after the annual rents to measure in the tenancy law ( 41 para 2 GKG). For the eviction, the bailiff about requests also an advance in the amount of evacuation costs. So considerable costs be on the landlord, if the lessee does not voluntarily publishes the leased property. Occasionally landlords on the idea to save these costs.

You waive an eviction and spaces the apartment itself, without having obtained a corresponding judgment. This is extremely dangerous for the landlord from a legal perspective, because it raises claims for damages of the lessee against the owner. The lessor shall be liable here regardless ( 231 BGB). It is so not even on whether the landlord may believed or E.g.