Bundesgerichtshof (First Civil Division) 14 February 1958
BGHZ 26, 349 = NJW 58, 827
(with a partially approving and partially critical note by Larenz JZ 1958, 571 and an approving article by H. Coing in JZ 1958, 558).

This case is first published in the German Law Archive courtesy of:

Translated German Cases and Materials under the direction of Professors P. Schlechtriem, B. Markesinis and S. Lorenz

Translated by F H Lawson and B S Markesinis

Copyright: Professor B S Markesinis
(more…)

Bundesgerichtshof (First Civil Division) 25 May 1954
BGHZ 13, 334 = NJW 1954, 1404 = JZ 1954, 698
(with an approving note by Helmut Coing)

This case is first published in the German Law Archive courtesy of:

Translated German Cases and Materials under the direction of Professors P. Schlechtriem, B. Markesinis and S. Lorenz

Translated by F H Lawson and B S Markesinis
(more…)

Bundesgerichtshof judgment of 30th April 1953 – III ZR 204/52 (Hamm).
BGH LM § 839 [Fg] BGB no 5

This case is first published in the German Law Archive courtesy of:

Translated German Cases and Materials under the direction of Professors P. Schlechtriem, B. Markesinis and S. Lorenz

Translated by Mr Raymond Youngs, Southampton Institute
(more…)

Reichsgericht (Second Civil Senate) 11 March 1932, RGZ 135, 339

On 18 January 1928, the plantiff bought from the defendant an oil painting entitled “Oaks at the Water” which was described as an original painting by Jacob I. (Isaakszon) van Ruisdael, together with an expert opinion by the late museum director B which, in the reading of the parties, confirmed that the work was created by this painter. The picture was handed over at once, and RM 15,000 were paid as the purchase price. The plaintiff alleges that the work has not been painted by “the famous master” Jacob I. van Ruisdael, but by his “far less famous cousin and imitator”, Jacob S. (Salomonszson) van Ruysdael.[1] He therefore had the contract rescinded on 18 October 1929 on the ground of mistake, and by this action requires return of the purchase price with interest. Both of the previous instances have rejected the action. The plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed for the following
(more…)

Reichsgericht (Third Civil Senate) 27 June 1913, RGZ 83, 15, with case note.

This case is first published in the German Law Archive courtesy of:

Translated German Cases and Materials under the direction of Professors P. Schlechtriem, B. Markesinis and S. Lorenz

Translated by Mr. Tony Weir, Trinity College, Cambridge
(more…)