References without law book default to BGB.
Case - Good Faith and Skateboard
Facts
Aaron (A) sells his skateboard to Mat (M) and transfers the ownership. M lends the skateboard to Kelvin (K). K sells the board to Ute (U) for EUR 250 and transfers the ownership. The typical price for a used skateboard is about EUR 150.
a) Who is the owner of the skateboard?
b) What can M do?
Solution
Slides Solution
Part A: Ownership (Case 35a)
- Issue: Who is the owner of the skateboard?
- Rule: Transfer of ownership under § 929 S. 1 BGB (Agreement, Delivery, Right to transfer).
- Application:
- (1) Original Owner: Originally, A was the owner.
- (2) Transfer A → M: A and M agreed, A delivered, and A had the right to transfer. M became the owner. → (+)
- (3) Lending M → K: Lending (§ 598 BGB) only transfers possession, not ownership. M remains the owner.
- (4) Transfer K → U: K and U agreed, K delivered, but K was not the owner. No right to transfer under § 929 S. 1 BGB. → (-)
- (5) Good faith acquisition K → U (§§ 929, 932 BGB):
- Good faith: Under § 932 II BGB, U was in good faith (no knowledge or gross negligence that the board did not belong to K). → (+)
- Not lost (§ 935 BGB): M gave the board to K voluntarily under a loan. The board was not stolen or lost. → (+)
- Consequence: U acquired ownership in good faith. → (+)
- Conclusion: U is the new owner of the skateboard.
Part B: Mat’s Remedies (Case 35b)
- Issue I: Claim for compensation under §§ 280 I, 241 II, 598 BGB
- Rule: § 280 I BGB (Damages for breach of duty).
- Application:
- Obligation: Lending contract under § 598 BGB. → (+)
- Breach: K sold the skateboard. It is K’s contractual duty to return the board and not sell it. → (+)
- Fault: Presumed under § 280 I 2 BGB and was intentional under § 276 I BGB. → (+)
- Damage: Loss of ownership of the skateboard (value is EUR 150).
- Conclusion: M can claim EUR 150 as contractual damages from K.
- Issue II: Claim for restitution of purchase price under § 816 I 1 BGB
- Rule: § 816 I 1 BGB (Disposition by unauthorized person).
- Application:
- Disposal: Transfer of ownership K → U. → (+)
- Unauthorized person: K was not the owner. → (+)
- Effective against owner: The transfer was effective because U acquired in good faith. → (+)
- Benefit obtained: K received EUR 250.
- Conclusion: M can claim restitution of the purchase price of EUR 250 from K.
- Issue III: Claim for damages under § 823 I BGB
- Rule: § 823 I BGB (Tort liability).
- Application:
- Injury: M’s property rights were injured (loss of ownership). → (+)
- Action: K transferred ownership to U. → (+)
- Fault: Intentional under § 276 I BGB. → (+)
- Damage: Value of the skateboard is EUR 150. → (+)
- Conclusion: M can claim damages of EUR 150 from K in tort.
Write-Up
Issue: Who is the owner of the skateboard, and what claims does M have against K?
Part a) Who is the owner of the skateboard?
Issue: Who is the current owner of the skateboard?1. Ownership of M
Rule: Under § 929 sentence 1 BGB, a transfer of ownership requires agreement, delivery, and the right to transfer. Under § 598 BGB, a loan only transfers physical possession.
Application: A was the owner. A sold and delivered the skateboard to M. All elements were present. Therefore, M became the owner. The subsequent loan from M to K (§ 598 BGB) only transferred physical possession to K, while M remained the owner.
Conclusion: M became the owner, and K was merely the possessor.2. Transfer from K to U
Rule: A valid transfer under § 929 sentence 1 BGB requires the transferor to have the right to transfer ownership.
Application: K sold and delivered the skateboard to U for EUR 250. Since K was not the owner and lacked authorization, he had no right to transfer.
Conclusion: A regular transfer of ownership under § 929 sentence 1 BGB failed.3. Good Faith Acquisition under § 932 I sentence 1 BGB
Rule: Under § 932 II BGB, the acquirer is in good faith unless they knew or acted with gross negligence regarding the lack of ownership. Under § 935 I BGB, a good faith acquisition is barred if the thing was stolen, missing, or otherwise involuntarily lost.
Application: U may have acquired ownership from the non-entitled K in good faith. U did not know of K’s lack of ownership, and there is no indication of gross negligence. Thus, U was in good faith. The skateboard was voluntarily lent by M to K, so it was not involuntarily lost. Therefore, § 935 I BGB does not apply.
Conclusion: U successfully acquired ownership of the skateboard in good faith.Part b) What can Mat (M) do?
Issue: What claims does M have against K due to the unauthorized sale?I. Contractual Claim for Damages under §§ 280 I, 241 II, 598 BGB
Rule: Under § 280 I BGB, a party can claim damages if the other breaches a duty arising from an obligation. Under § 241 II BGB, parties must respect each other’s property rights.
Application: Under the loan contract (§ 598 BGB), K was obliged to respect M’s property rights. By selling the skateboard to U, K breached his duties. K’s fault is presumed (§ 280 I 2 BGB) and was intentional (§ 276 I BGB). The damage is the loss of his skateboard, valued at EUR 150.
Conclusion: M can claim damages of EUR 150 from K under § 280 I BGB.II. Claim for Restitution of the Purchase Price under § 816 I 1 BGB
Rule: Under § 816 I 1 BGB, if a non-authorized person disposes of an object, and the disposal is effective against the authorized person, they must restitute the benefit obtained.
Application: K was non-authorized, and the disposal to U was effective against M because U acquired it in good faith under § 932 BGB. The benefit obtained by K was the purchase price of EUR 250.
Conclusion: M can claim the full EUR 250 from K.III. Tort Claim for Damages under § 823 I BGB
Rule: Under § 823 I BGB, a person who unlawfully and intentionally or negligently injures the property of another is liable for damages.
Application: K intentionally sold M’s skateboard, causing M to lose ownership. This was unlawful and intentional under § 276 I BGB. The compensation for the value of the skateboard is EUR 150 (§ 249 I BGB).
Conclusion: M has a tort claim for EUR 150 against K.