References without law book default to BGB. Parts of this page were generated by AI.

AI Generated Exam Case

Case - Office Furniture Delay

Facts

ConsultingPro GmbH (C) is a management consulting firm. In August, C is renovating its Munich office and urgently needs new desks.
On 10th of August, I, a 19-year-old student who works as a summer intern for C, decides to take initiative. Without any prior authorization from the management, I calls Fritz (F), a commercial furniture wholesale trader. I orders 10 customized oak desks for a total of EUR 5,000 in the name of ConsultingPro GmbH. I explicitly tells F that delivery must happen on “1st of October”. F agrees.

Two days later, F sends a written order confirmation addressed to the management of C, outlining the order details and the delivery date of 1st of October. The managing director of C reads the confirmation. He realizes that I acted without permission, but he finds the price excellent. He emails F: “We received your confirmation. We are happy with the deal and expect delivery on October 1st as discussed with our intern.”

On 1st of October, the desks do not arrive. F calls C and apologizes, explaining that his own wood supplier had a sudden shortage, causing a delay in production. F promises to deliver the desks two weeks later. Since C has new consultants starting on October 2nd, C is forced to rent temporary substitute desks for two weeks from another company, which costs EUR 500.

F finally delivers the 10 custom desks on 15th of October. The management of C is busy and simply tells the janitor to put the boxes into storage. They do not inspect the desks. Three weeks later, on 5th of November, they finally unpack the desks and realize that F delivered mahogany desks instead of oak desks. The mahogany desks clash terribly with the office decor.

C contacts F and demands:

1. Compensation of EUR 500 for the rental costs of the substitute desks.
2. Replacement of the mahogany desks with the originally ordered oak desks.

Questions:
a. Was a valid sales contract concluded between C and F despite the intern’s lack of authorization? (6 P)
b. Can C demand the EUR 500 rental costs from F? (10 P)
c. Can C demand the replacement of the mahogany desks with oak desks under the BGB? (9 P)

Solution

Solution Summary

Part a: Contract Formation and Agency

• Issue: Is there a sales contract pursuant to § 433 BGB?
• Rule:
  • Contract formation: Matching offer (§ 145 BGB) and acceptance (§ 147 BGB).
  • Agency: Representative’s declaration binds principal if made with own declaration of intent, in principal’s name, and with authority (§ 164 (1) 1 BGB).
  • Missing authority: Leads to provisional invalidity (§ 177 (1) BGB) subject to ratification (§ 182 (1), § 184 (1) BGB).
  • GmbH representation: By its managing director (§ 35 (1) GmbHG).
• Application:
  • Offer & Acceptance: I made an offer (§ 145 BGB) with essentialia negotii, F accepted (§ 147 BGB).
  • Agency: I submitted own declaration in C’s name but lacked authority → provisionally invalid (§ 177 (1) BGB).
  • Ratification: C’s managing director (§ 35 (1) GmbHG) expressly ratified via email (§ 182 (1) BGB) → retroactively approved (§ 184 (1) BGB).
• Conclusion: Yes, a sales contract under § 433 BGB was concluded.

Part b: Damages for Delay (Rental Costs)

• Issue: Does C have a claim against F for damages of EUR 500 under §§ 280 (1), (2), 286 BGB?
• Rule:
  • Requirements: Valid obligation, default (§ 286 BGB), fault (§§ 280 (1) S. 2, 276 (1) BGB), and resulting damage (§ 249 (1) BGB).
  • Default: Generally requires a dunning letter, unless a calendar date is determined (§ 286 (2) No. 1 BGB).
• Application:
  • Obligation: Valid sales contract exists.
  • Default: Delivery due “1st of October” (current year via §§ 133, 157 BGB) → dunning letter dispensable (§ 286 (2) No. 1 BGB).
  • Fault: F presumed at fault (§ 280 (1) S. 2 BGB). No personal negligence and supplier is not a vicarious agent (§ 278 S. 1 BGB), but F assumed procurement risk for generic goods (§ 276 (1) S. 1 Alt. 2 BGB) → cannot exculpate himself.
  • Damage: EUR 500 rental cost is a compensable delay damage (§ 249 (1) BGB).
• Conclusion: Yes, C can claim damages of EUR 500 from F.

Part c: Replacement of the Desks

• Issue: Can C demand replacement of the desks under §§ 437 No. 1, 439 (1) BGB?
• Rule:
  • Cure: Requires a material defect (§ 434 BGB) at the passing of risk.
  • Commercial duty: In mutual commercial transactions, buyer must inspect and notify without undue delay, or goods are deemed accepted (§ 377 HGB).
• Application:
  • Defect: Mahogany instead of oak fails subjective (§ 434 (2) BGB) and objective (§ 434 (3) BGB) requirements. It is an aliud delivery, subsumed as a material defect (§ 434 (5) BGB).
  • Commercial transaction: C (merchant under § 13 GmbHG, § 6 (1) HGB) and F (merchant under § 1 (2) HGB) concluded a commercial transaction (§ 343 HGB).
  • Inspection duty: C inspected 3 weeks late → breached “without undue delay” requirement (§ 377 (1) HGB).
  • Consequence: Goods deemed accepted (§ 377 (2) HGB).
• Conclusion: No, C loses its right to replacement under § 437 No. 1 BGB.

Advanced Legal Analysis

Topic 1: Absolute vs. Relative Fixed-Date Transactions

• The parties agreed on “1st of October”. Was this an absolute fixed-date transaction (absolutes Fixgeschäft) under § 275 I BGB, where performance after the date is entirely impossible? In commercial reality, unless explicitly stated that the performance is entirely useless after the date (e.g., a wedding cake for a specific wedding day), it is treated merely as a relative fixed-date transaction (relatives Fixgeschäft, § 323 II No. 2 BGB). Therefore, the obligation to deliver the desks did not become impossible, but merely triggered default mechanisms.

Topic 2: Liability for Suppliers in Supply Chains

• When a seller fails to deliver because their supplier fails them, is the supplier a vicarious agent (Erfüllungsgehilfe, § 278 BGB) of the seller? According to settled BGH case law, a manufacturer or an upstream supplier is not a vicarious agent of the seller, because the seller’s obligation is merely to transfer ownership and hand over the good, not to manufacture it. However, the seller is still liable for the delay because they assumed a procurement risk (Gattungsschuld) under § 276 I 1 BGB, meaning they implicitly guarantee that they can procure the generic goods.

Write-Up

Question a: Contract Formation and Agency

Issue: Is there a sales contract between C and F pursuant to § 433 BGB?

Rule: A valid sales contract (§ 433 BGB) requires two corresponding declarations of intent: an offer (§ 145 BGB) and an acceptance (§ 147 BGB). The offer must contain the essentialia negotii (the contracting parties, the subject matter, and the price).
Furthermore, under the law of agency (§ 164 (1) 1 BGB), a declaration made by a representative binds the principal if the representative submits their own declaration of intent, acts in the name of the principal, and has the requisite authority. If a person acts as a representative without the necessary authority, the contract is provisionally invalid (§ 177 (1) BGB) and only becomes binding upon the principal’s ratification. A GmbH is statutorily represented by its managing director under § 35 (1) GmbHG. Ratification (§ 182 (1) BGB) is an express declaration that retroactively approves the contract (§ 184 (1) BGB).

Application:
First, a valid offer is required. On August 10th, I contacted F by phone and ordered desks. This declaration constitutes an offer (§ 145 BGB). It contained all necessary essentialia negotii: the parties (C and F), the goods (10 customized oak desks), and the price (EUR 5,000).

Secondly, because I is not the buyer himself, his offer is only binding for C if the requirements of agency (§ 164 (1) 1 BGB) are met. I submitted his own declaration of intent (rather than acting as a mere messenger) and he acted explicitly in the name of the principal (ConsultingPro GmbH). However, as a summer intern, I acted without any prior authorization or authority to make such purchases.

F agreed to the order on the phone, which constitutes a valid acceptance (§ 147 BGB) of the offer.

Because F accepted but I acted without permission, the contract is provisionally invalid under § 177 (1) BGB. It requires ratification by C to be legally binding. C is a GmbH, meaning it is legally represented by its managing director (MD) under § 35 (1) GmbHG. The MD subsequently sent an email to F stating they were “happy with the deal”. This email constitutes an express declaration of ratification (§ 182 (1) BGB). Through this ratification, the previously provisionally invalid contract was retroactively approved (§ 184 (1) BGB) and became fully effective.

Conclusion: Yes, a valid sales contract under § 433 BGB was concluded.

---

Question b: Damages for Delay (Rental Costs)

Issue: Does C have a claim against F for damages for delay amounting to EUR 500 under §§ 280 (1), (2), 286 BGB?

Rule: A claim for damages for delay under §§ 280 (1), (2), 286 BGB requires four elements: a valid obligation, breach of duty (default), responsibility/fault, and resulting damage.
Under § 286 (1) BGB, a debtor is in default if they fail to perform an enforceable claim after a dunning letter (Mahnung). However, a dunning letter is dispensable under § 286 (2) No. 1 BGB if the time for performance is determined by the calendar. Under § 280 (1) S. 2 BGB, the debtor is presumed at fault unless they exculpate themselves. Fault requires intent or negligence (§ 276 (1) BGB) or the assumption of a procurement risk. Damages are calculated under § 249 (1) BGB, which requires placing the creditor in the position they would have been in without the delay.

Application:

1. Obligation: As established in Task a), a valid sales contract exists between C and F (§ 433 BGB).

2. Breach of Duty (Default): Under § 433 (1) S. 1 BGB, F owed delivery of the desks. Delivery was due and enforceable. While C did not send a dunning letter, the parties explicitly agreed on “1st of October”. By interpreting the declarations (§§ 133, 157 BGB) in light of the August negotiations, this date clearly refers to the current year. Thus, the deadline is determined by the calendar, making a dunning letter dispensable (§ 286 (2) No. 1 BGB). F was in default as of October 2nd.

3. Responsibility / Fault: Under § 280 (1) S. 2 BGB, F is presumed responsible. F attempts to exculpate himself by blaming a wood shortage from his supplier. While F has no personal intent or negligence (§ 276 (1) BGB), and a standard supplier of generic goods is not a vicarious agent (Erfüllungsgehilfe) under § 278 S. 1 BGB, F still bears responsibility. By concluding a contract for generic goods (customized oak desks), F assumed the procurement risk (Beschaffungsrisiko) under § 276 (1) S. 1 Alt. 2 BGB, meaning he guarantees his ability to acquire the materials. Therefore, F cannot exculpate himself (§ 286 (4) BGB).

4. Damage: Pursuant to § 249 (1) BGB, C must be placed in the position it would have been in without the delay. But for the delay, C would not have incurred the EUR 500 rental cost for temporary desks. This constitutes a compensable damage caused directly by the delay (Verzugsschaden).

Conclusion: Yes, C can successfully claim damages of EUR 500 from F on the basis of §§ 280 (1), (2), 286 BGB.

---

Question c: Replacement of the Desks

Issue: Can C demand replacement of the mahogany desks with oak desks under §§ 437 No. 1, 439 (1) Alt. 2 BGB?

Rule: Under § 437 No. 1 BGB, a buyer can demand cure (such as replacement under § 439 (1) Alt. 2 BGB) if the goods have a material defect (§ 434 BGB) upon the passing of risk. However, under § 377 (1) HGB, if the purchase is a mutual commercial transaction, the buyer must inspect the goods promptly after delivery and notify the seller of any defects without undue delay. If the buyer fails to do so, the goods are deemed accepted (§ 377 (2) HGB), and warranty rights are forfeited unless the defect was hidden.

Application:

1. Material Defect (§ 434 BGB): Upon the passing of risk (when the desks were delivered), the goods must fulfill certain requirements.

   • Subjective requirements (§ 434 (2) BGB): For furniture, aesthetics are an essential characteristic. For C, the different optics of mahogany do not match the agreed nature (oak) and conflict with their requirements.
   • Objective requirements (§ 434 (3) BGB): Since these tables are customized, C rightfully expected the nature of the tables to be oak.
   • Assembly requirements (§ 434 (4) BGB): The case states no facts contradicting the fulfillment of assembly requirements.
   • Aliud delivery (§ 434 (5) BGB): In addition, mahogany tables can be considered a different thing entirely compared to customized oak tables. § 434 (5) BGB explicitly subsumes the delivery of a different thing as a material defect.
     Thus, a material defect exists.

2. Double Merchant Status and Commercial Transaction: C and F are commercial companies. C is a merchant by its legal form (§ 13 (3) GmbHG, § 6 (1) HGB), and F is a commercial trader (§ 1 (2) HGB). The purchase of the tables is clearly a commercial transaction belonging to the operation of their businesses (§ 343 HGB). Therefore, the strict rules of § 377 HGB apply.

3. Inspection and Notification (§ 377 HGB): C must inspect the goods promptly after arrival. However, C only did this after 3 weeks. This breaches the “without undue delay” requirement of § 377 (1) HGB. The defect (wrong wood color) was clearly visible on inspection. Because C failed to notify F of the defect in time, the desks are considered legally accepted under § 377 (2) HGB.

Conclusion: No, because the goods are deemed accepted, C loses its right to demand replacement under §§ 437 No. 1, 439 (1) BGB.