The lawyers inform Pach & Pach from Nuremberg the Nuremberg firm Pach & Pach informed on the occasion of a judgment of the Federal Court of justice by March 2, 2011 (BGH VIII ZR 209/10) on the right to the reduction in rent for the case that one furnished the contractually agreed home size lower than rented flat. The tenant ABS is of 536.1, S. 1 BGB granted a right to reduction in rent, if the leased thing suffers from defects. In its decision of 2 March 2011, the Federal Supreme Court decided about whether a reduction right exists, unless a substantial difference between the contractually guaranteed and actual living room area at the expense of the lessee is. In the negotiated facts the plaintiff moved into a furnished apartment of contractually specified 50 m in 2006 size. He noted in 2009 that an actual usable flat area of only 44, 3 m available was him, and he sought a retroactive reduction in rent to the extent court to reach the surface deviation by 11.5%. As well as the last Court of appeal, the Federal Court ruled that the facts of the present case actually a reduction as defect existed in.
On the basis of 536 ABS. 1 S 2 BGB is a surface difference between lease and reality by more than 10% basically as a major deficiency of the leased property. While also the Court finally concluded that the complaining tenants had a rent reduction claim, it reduced its size due to the apartment furnishings. As justification, she stated that the tenant of a furnished apartment have to tolerate, if would restrict his freedom of movement and establishment by the furniture. Therefore, a full reduction in rent here in question would be.
In contrast to the Court, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that no difference do it for the extent of the reduction in rent, whether furnished or unfurnished apartment would rent. Reducing got only from the gross rent including incidental expenses allowance, or Costs payment to determine. The Federal Supreme Court has clarified two things with its judgment of 2 March 2011: the size of the apartment is regarded as contract-essential criterion. Significant deviations in this area are therefore a violation within the meaning of 536.1 S. 2 BGB for a reduction in rent enough. The scope of such reasonable reduction in rent is irrelevant, whether the apartment is fully furnished or unfurnished rented. Tenant notice a significant difference between contractual and actual size of apartment is to advise them to consult a mietrechtlich experienced legal assistance.
Auer Witte Thiel informed: tenant is in default of payment, work also ordinary termination Munich July 2013: neither Article 573, paragraph 2 No. 1 BGB 569 ABS. 3 BGB No. 3 are on an ordinary termination due to default of payment applicable. The Federal Supreme Court in a ruling made it clear. The firm Auer Witte Thiel informs about the backgrounds of the judges decision and explains what the verdict for landlords.
According to the German Federal Supreme Court, other rules apply to an ordinary termination due to default in payment, as for extraordinary dismissal for the same reason. So refers to 543 paragraph 2, sentence 1, no. 3 BGB, which as a precondition a minimum Mietruckstand of two month’s rent or a default period of two months in a row provides alone on extraordinary cancellations. May be below this threshold value, however, in an ordinary termination, refers to the judgment of the Federal Court by the 10th of October 2012 (AZ. Auer Witte Thiel VIII ZR 107/12). Federal Court judges: legal requirements for extraordinary termination, with neat not to his judgment came the Federal Supreme Court in a case in which a tenant first had fallen due to non-payment or incomplete payment of the advances of its heating costs in default. His landlady announced him so punctually.
After he legally had been sentenced to payment of the receivable and finally paid them, the tenant with the current monthly rent fell into arrears. Then, the landlady announced again on time. The tenant went into revision, so that finally the Bundesgerichtshof concerned with the case, so Auer Witte Thiel. In his decision dated the 10th of October 2012 (AZ. VIII 107/12) the Supreme Court came to the following conclusion: an ordinary termination section 569, paragraph 3 is not applicable No. 3 BGB. Therefore the lessor have wait also not two months until the final condemnation of the tenant on the 15.11.10 with their termination. The lease was effectively ended on October 5, 2009. Auer Witte Thiel: Can landlord from which this conclusion Landlord move BGH judgment have explained even Auer Witte Thiel, you can properly terminate a tenancy if the Mietruckstand of the tenant but less than two is more than one month’s rent, the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice. Even if exceeds the default duration of one month, two but not yet reached, the landlord may terminate. The two-month notice according to 569, para 3 No. 3 BGB touched in this case. About the law firm Auer Witte Thiel, the specialization areas of focus and the development of core competencies in certain disciplines are indispensable in the legal services sector. Auer Witte Thiel is a business law oriented law firm and represents several German insurance companies. The firm Auer Witte Thiel is Munich. The verdict, Auer Witte Thiel provides additional information under available. How to contact with Auer Witte Thiel lawyers Bayerstrasse 27 80335 Munich phone: 089/59 98 97 60 fax: 089 / 550 38 71 E-Mail: Web:
Impure public goods are goods which only partially meet the criteria for public goods. > A common or collective good is a good that is freely accessible to all potential buyers. Commons can be provided by the State or by private providers (for example, parts of the Internet or the Wikipedia). Public goods and common goods are Community goods with the property of not from IDC. A resource is free, if you can use them without permission “or neutral given permission to use them.” (Lawrence Lessing) > Creative Commons (abbreviated CC; for Creative Commons, Commons) is a non-profit organization that was founded in 2001. They published several standard license agreements, with which an author of the public easily concede rights to his works can. These licenses are not tailored to a single type of plant, but applicable to any works covered by copyright copyright protection, for example texts, images, music tracks, video clips, etc.
Free content are created in this way. Contrary to a common misconception, Creative Commons is not the name of a license. The different licenses have great differences of Creative Commons. Some CC licenses relatively heavily restrict the use, others make sure that copyright is waived as far as possible. Published someone, for example, a work under the CC-BY-SA license, then he allows the use by other people, but the copyright as well as the relevant licence must be specified. This is the license Wikipedia uses; Free content, whether under a CC license or another, are important for people who want to or can not spend money for texts, pictures, music, etc. In addition must be content under specific CC licenses changed and processed be. This is important for people who want to go to for example artistically with the content. The works of a creator (such as text, music, images, videos, etc.) Private property are usually copyright protected.