References without law book default to BGB.

Case - Minor Capacity

Facts

Lotte (L) is 10 years old and very interested in chemistry. One day, she goes to Carsten’s (C) specialist shop for chemistry and buys three Erlenmeyer flasks for EUR 20 each (EUR 60 in total).

This money (EUR 60) has been given to her by her grandparents as a birthday present. L’s parents (P) do not know of this.

At home, she shows the flasks to her parents, who get angry at her. Her parents think L should instead invest her money in toys that are not potentially dangerous. Therefore, they go to C and want him to give L back the EUR 60.

a) Does C have to give the money back?
b) Who is the owner of the flasks?
c) Does L have to give the flasks back?

Solution

Slides Solution

Part A: Claim for return of the money

• Issue: Does C have to give the money back to L under § 812 I 1 Alt. 1 BGB?
• Rule: Claim of restitution requires C must have (1) obtained something, (2) as a result of performance, (3) without legal grounds.
• Application:
  • 1. Something obtained: The money.
    • Ownership? → § 929 S. 1 BGB requires agreement, delivery, and right to transfer. For the agreement, L’s DoI is problematic. Since transferring ownership of her money is not merely legally beneficial (§ 107 BGB) and her parents did not consent, her DoI is void. § 110 BGB does not apply because the means were given by a third party (grandparents) without ratification by the parents. Thus, C did NOT obtain ownership of the money.
    • Possession? → (+), C obtained possession.
  • 2. As a result of performance: → (+), L thought she had the duty to pay the purchase price due to an alleged contract and C thought she paid to fulfill this duty.
  • 3. Without legal grounds: → Did L have the duty to pay under § 433 II BGB? Was there a contract? L’s DoI to enter the contract is not merely beneficial (§ 107 BGB) because it creates an obligation to pay. Parents disagree. § 110 BGB doesn’t apply (means from third party without parental ratification). L’s DoI is void. No contract was formed. → (+), without legal grounds.
• Conclusion: L has a claim for restitution against C according to § 812 I 1 Alt. 1 BGB. C must return the EUR 60.

Part B: Ownership of the flasks

• Issue: Is there a valid transfer of ownership from C to L in line with § 929 S. 1 BGB?
• Rule: Requirements: (1) Agreement, (2) Delivery, (3) Right to transfer.
• Application:
  • 1. Agreement: Two matching DoIs. C’s DoI → (+). L’s DoI → Only legally beneficial (§ 107 BGB)? → (+), L gets ownership without any legal disadvantages. Her DoI is valid!
  • 2. Delivery: → (+), C gave the flasks to L.
  • 3. Right to transfer: → (+), C was the owner.
• Conclusion: L has become the owner of the flasks (Principle of Abstraction!).

Part C: Return of the flasks

• Issue: Does L have to give the flasks back?
• Rule: Restitution claim by C against L (§ 812 I 1 Alt. 1 BGB): (1) obtained something, (2) as a result of performance, (3) without legal grounds.
• Application:
  • 1. Something obtained: Ownership of the flasks → (+) (see Part B).
  • 2. As a result of performance: → (+), C thought he had the duty to procure ownership for L due to an alleged contract.
  • 3. Without legal grounds: → (+), C had no duty to procure ownership since no sales contract was formed (see Part A).
• Conclusion: C has a claim for restitution against L under § 812 I 1 Alt. 1 BGB. L has to give back the flasks.

Write-Up

Issue: Can L demand restitution of the EUR 60 from C under § 812 I 1 Alt. 1 BGB, who is the owner of the flasks under § 929 S. 1 BGB, and can C demand restitution of the flasks from L under § 812 I 1 Alt. 1 BGB?

Part A: Claim for return of the money

Issue: Can L demand restitution of the EUR 60 from C under § 812 I 1 Alt. 1 BGB?

Rule: Under § 812 I 1 Alt. 1 BGB, a claim for restitution requires that a person has obtained something, as a result of performance, and without legal grounds.

Application:
1. Something obtained: C must have obtained something of value. C obtained possession of the physical money. However, C did not obtain ownership under § 929 S. 1 BGB. L is a minor with limited capacity to contract (§ 106 BGB). The transfer of ownership of her money is not a merely legally beneficial transaction for her (§ 107 BGB). Without the consent of her parents, her declaration of intent to transfer ownership is invalid (§ 108 BGB). The pocket money exception (§ 110 BGB) does not apply because the funds were provided by a third party (grandparents) without the parents’ consent. Thus, C only obtained possession, not ownership.

2. By performance: C obtained possession through L’s conscious and purpose-directed augmentation of C’s assets, intended to fulfill an alleged sales contract.

3. Without legal grounds: The performance must lack a legal basis. The legal basis would be a valid sales contract under § 433 BGB. As established, L has limited capacity. Entering into a sales contract creates a legal obligation to pay, meaning it is not merely beneficial (§ 107 BGB). Because the parents refused consent and § 110 BGB does not apply, L’s declaration of intent to buy the flasks is void. There is no valid contract and therefore no legal ground for the performance.

Conclusion: C must return the EUR 60 to L under § 812 I 1 Alt. 1 BGB.

---

Part B: Ownership of the flasks

Issue: Did L become the owner of the flasks under § 929 S. 1 BGB?

Rule: Under § 929 S. 1 BGB, a valid transfer of ownership requires an in rem agreement between the parties, delivery of the item, and the transferor’s right to transfer ownership.

Application:
1. Agreement: A transfer of ownership requires an in rem agreement. C made a valid declaration of intent to transfer ownership. L also made a declaration. Although L is a minor, acquiring ownership of a movable item is a merely legally beneficial transaction for her, as it confers a right without creating personal obligations. Therefore, her declaration of intent to acquire ownership is valid without parental consent under § 107 BGB.

2. Delivery and Right to Transfer: C delivered the flasks to L and was the rightful owner with the authority to dispose of them.

Conclusion: Under the Principle of Abstraction (Abstraktionsprinzip), the transfer of ownership (disposal transaction) is independent of the underlying sales contract (obligation transaction). L became the legal owner of the flasks.

---

Part C: Return of the flasks

Issue: Can C demand restitution of the flasks from L under § 812 I 1 Alt. 1 BGB?

Rule: Under § 812 I 1 Alt. 1 BGB, a claim for restitution requires that a person has obtained something, as a result of performance, and without legal grounds.

Application:
1. Something obtained: As established in Part B, L obtained both possession and ownership of the flasks.

2. By performance: L obtained them through C’s conscious and purpose-directed performance aimed at fulfilling the alleged sales contract.

3. Without legal grounds: As established in Part A, the underlying sales contract is void due to L’s limited capacity to contract and lack of parental consent. Therefore, the transfer of ownership occurred without any legal ground.

Conclusion: C has a claim for restitution against L under § 812 I 1 Alt. 1 BGB. L must return the ownership and possession of the flasks to C.