Abgasskandal VW-Gruppe: Informationen zur Rechtslage

Im Hinblick auf die angekündigte Rückrufaktion seitens der VW-Gruppe werden im Folgenden die wesentlichen rechtlichen Erwägungen aus Käufersicht dargestellt.

1. Sachmängelgewährleistung des Verkäufers

Dem Käufer stehen gegenüber seinem Vertragspartner (dem Verkäufer, nicht gegenüber der VW-Gruppe selbst) Sachmängelgewährleistungsrechte zu.

 

a)      Nacherfüllung

 

Der Käufer kann vom Verkäufer zunächst Nacherfüllung verlangen. Dazu bedarf es einer Aufforderung seitens des Käufers an seinen Vertragspartner, die Mängelbeseitigung umgehend (Nachfrist in der Regel 14 Tage) vorzunehmen. Diese Aufforderung muss innerhalb der Verjährungsfrist von zwei Jahren (§ 439 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 BGB) erfolgen. Die Verjährung des Anspruchs auf Nacherfüllung wird im Übrigen durch Verhandlungen, d.h. einem ernsthaften Meinungsaustausch über den Anspruch und seine Grundlagen, gehemmt, sofern der Verkäufer die Leistung nicht sofort und erkennbar ablehnt (BGH v. 07.11.2011 - IX ZR 100/08).

 

b) Minderung und Rücktritt

 

Verweigert sich der Verkäufer der Nachbesserung oder treten infolge der vorgenommenen Nacherfüllung weitere Verschlechterungen (z.B. Leistungsverlust oder Kraftstoffmehrverbrauch) auf, bestünde immer noch ein Mangel. Der Verkäufer schuldet weiterhin den vertraglich vereinbarten Sollzustand. Spätestens nach einer zweiten erfolglosen Nachbesserung ist der Käufer zur Minderung des Kaufpreises oder - im Falle überlanger Reparaturdauer oder gravierender Verschlechterungen, etwa bei einem Kraftstoffmehrverbrauch von 10 % (BGH v. 08.07.2015 - VIII ZR 19/05) - zum Rücktritt berechtigt. Diese weitergehenden Mängelgewährleistungsrechte des Käufers unterliegen ihrerseits wiederum der Regelverjährung von drei Jahren (§ 195 BGB; die obigen Ausführungen zur Hemmung durch Verhandlungen gelten entsprechend).

Stellt ein Gericht hingegen fest, dass der Sachmangel den Rücktritt nicht rechtfertigt, ist der Käufer weiterhin berechtigt, die Minderung des Kaufpreises zu verlangen. In diesem Fall ist die Verjährung des Anspruchs auf Minderung durch die Geltendmachung des Anspruchs auf Rücktritt vom Kaufvertrag gehemmt (BGH v. 29.04.2015 - VIII ZR 180/14).

 

            II. Erwägungen zur Rückrufaktion

 

a) Kostentragungspflicht

 

Grundsätzlich besteht keine Kostentragungspflicht der VW-Gruppe für die angekündigten Servicemaßnahmen. In der Regel werden die Kosten - allein aus Gründen der Reputation - allerdings vom Hersteller übernommen. Im Falle der Mängelgewährleistung des Verkäufers fallen dem Käufer ohnehin keine zusätzlichen Kosten an. Bei Fahrzeugen außerhalb der Mängelgewährleistungsfrist käme allenfalls ein Anspruch gegen die Hersteller in Höhe der Beseitigungskosten nach § 826 BGB in Betracht. Aufgrund der voraussichtlichen freiwilligen Kostentragung durch VW hat die Leistungserbringung in den Vertragswerkstätten von VW zu erfolgen; eine etwaige Auszahlung der Reparaturkosten ist mangels Rechtsanspruch hingegen nicht möglich.

 

b) Keine Sachmängelgewährleistungsrechte gegenüber VW

 

Die angekündigten Servicemaßnahmen der VW-Gruppe begründen aller Voraussicht nach - mangels Werkvertrag in Folge der unentgeltlichen Leistungserbringung - ihrerseits keine weiteren Sachmängelgewährleistungsrechte des Käufers. Bringen die Servicemaßnahmen nicht den gewünschten Erfolg, hat sich der Käufer weiterhin gegenüber dem Verkäufer schadlos zu halten - Aufforderung zur Nacherfüllung, Minderung, Rücktritt (vgl. oben).

 

c) Weitere Ansprüche während der Rückrufaktion

 

Ein Anspruch auf Erstattung von Fahrkosten und eines etwaigen Verdienstausfalles können ferner nur gegenüber VW in den engen Grenzen des § 826 BGB geltend gemacht werden. Ein dahingehender vertraglicher Schadensersatzanspruch gegen den Verkäufer oder ein Recht auf einen Leihwagen ist mangels Verschulden abzulehnen. Ein Rechtsanspruch auf einen Leihwagen gegen die VW-Gruppe ergibt sich ebenfalls nicht aus der Herstellergarantie, umfasst diese gerade nicht einen Mobilitätsanspruch.

 

III.        Leasing

 

Viele betroffene Fahrzeuge sind nicht gekauft sondern geleast. Leasingnehmer haben aufgrund der besonderen Vertragsart bei den nächsten Schritten einige Besonderheiten zu beachten.

 

Grundsätzlich haben Leasingnehmer dieselben Rechte wie Eigentümer. Sie können sich auf die kaufrechtlichen Sachmängelgewährleistungrechte (s.o.) gegenüber dem Händler als Lieferanten berufen, sofern diese vom Leasinggeber abgetreten wurden. Scheitert die Nacherfüllung, kann vom Kaufvertrag zurückgetreten und damit auch der Leasingvertrag rückabgewickelt werden.

 

Eine Kündigung des Leasingvertrages selbst ist nur aus wichtigem Grund möglich. Dieser liegt vor, wenn die Vertragsdurchführung erheblich gefährdet wird. Eine Manipulationssoftware im Leasingfahrzeug gefährdet die Vertragsdurchführung nicht.

 

Auch eine eigenmächtige Minderung der Raten des laufenden Vertrages ist dem Leasingnehmer nicht anzuraten. Da der Leasingvertrag ein modifizierter Mietvertrag ist, ist das mietrechtliche Mängelrecht der Ratenminderung nicht gegeben - es besteht die Gefahr des Zahlungsverzugs.

 

Wird das Fahrzeug am Ende der Laufzeit zurückgegeben, stellt sich die Frage, wer einen möglichen Wertverlust zu tragen hat. Zu unterscheiden ist aber zwischen dem Restwert- und dem Kilometerleasing. Beim Restwertleasing trägt der Leasingnehmer den Wertverlust. Beim Kilometerleasing hingegen trifft dieses Risiko den Leasinggeber.

A "cutting-edge legal question" of copyright ownership

Lawsuit filed by PETA has raised concerns about standing

Nowadays a self portrait photograph might be considered as common. The selfie has already acquired a place in our society when even the political elite, as President Barack Obama or Chancellor Angela Merkel does, tend to take photographs of itself.

Apart from this trend, legal experts now face the novel problem to deal with a selfie taken by a macaque monkey and the emerging question of the legitimate owner of the photographs.

 

The animal rights group PETA at least filed a lawsuit on behalf of the macaque monkey, better known as Naruto, seeking the monkey to be declared the copyright owner, rather than the nature photographer and self-proclaimed advocate of animal rights David Slater who positioned the camera. PETA claims that all benefits arising from the sale and distribution shall be assigned to the monkey with PETA using the money to preserve Naruto's habitat on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi.

 

Adversaries of PETA's motion claim to dismiss the case pending before U.S. District Judge William Orrick III of the Northern District of California for lack of standing. Admittedly, animals may have standing to sue under the Endangered Species Act, the Ninth Circuit case law does not apply under the Copyright Act: "unless Congress has plainly stated that animals have standing to sue, the federal courts will not read any legislation to confer statutory standing to animals", Berkeley solo Andrew Dhuey points out. Beyond the issue of legal standing, Angela Dunning representing the book creation website Blurb, indicates that PETA's complaint may also be ill-founded with respect to the represented monkey because PETA describes Naruto as a male macaque, while Slater's notes indicate that the respective monkey was female.

 

Furthermore, the desire to seek a court order declaring Naruto the legitimate copyright owner may have little prospect to success according to David Favre, a Michigan State law professor. PETA may have a fair argument but it is still "an uphill battle".

Cheryl Dancey Balough, a copyright specialist lawyer from Chicago, emphasizes that Slater bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that his contribution to the selfies rises to a sufficient level that warrants a copyright.

However, Jeffrey Kerr, PETA's lawyer, considers the scope of the Copyright Act not be limited to any species so that "copyright law is clear: it's not the person who owns the camera, it's the being who took the photograph."

Charlotte Needs Venture Capital

Forbes magazine recently named North Carolina as one of the top states for businesses and careers in the publication's 10th annual list. However, Charlotte's geographical neighbors such as Atlanta, Nashville and Tampa are outpacing the city when it comes to drawing in venture capital and nurturing start-ups. Surrounded by big banks and other large companies, Charlotte lacks a medical school, which in recent studies has shown to be problematic as it stifles the number of inventions, patents, as well as venture capital, research and development money.

Between 2011 and 2013, Charlotte averaged a mere 42 inventions and 12 patents, compared to Atlanta's 494 inventions and 100 patents and Nashville's 178 inventions and 37 patents.

Despite the seemingly bleak numbers, there is hope for Charlotte as it continues to grow, change, develop and adapt. Moreover, while Charlotte is unable to currently boast about its start-up success unlike its neighbors, there are many companies that promote start-ups by fostering intellectual and nurturing environments and enhancing it growing business climate.

Companies like BridgeCubator, a part of the Bridgehouse global family of entrepreneur and business-growth focused services assist individuals and businesses with cultivating relationships and creating new revenue stream for start-ups.

For further information about start-ups, please contact Alex Ruby with BridgeCubator at alex.ruby@bhlus.com

First come, first serve

Outsourcing companies exploit the H-1B Program

Originally the H-1B program has been designed to attract foreign professionals with college degrees and much-needed special skills to fill jobs when equally qualified Americans cannot be found.

However, in recent years the program has been dominated by global outsourcing companies "squeezing out legitimate users of the program", which would be tantamount to "pushing jobs offshore", Ronil Hira, professor at Howard University observes. Her recent survey actually backs this conclusion by proving that thirteen globally outsourcing companies, including the India-based giants Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and Infosys as well as the India-related Cognizant from Teaneck, NJ, nearly won one-third of all H-1B visas in 2014. The top 20 companies actually received about 40 percent, which amounts to 32,000 out of the annually limited 85,000 visas, while more than 10,000 employers had to be content with far fewer visas each. The survey even displays that about half of the applications were rejected entirely because the quota had been exhausted.

Although the H-1B program provides for a limitation of one application per foreign worker, the total number of applications filed by a company is unlimited. Once the quota is met, visa recipients are selected by a computer-run lottery. So by the opening of the application window on April 1st big companies tend to flood the system with applications. Inevitably this leads to a breakdown of the entire program each year considering that the costly - each application amounts up to $4,000 - applications are accepted first come first served. For this reason for example TCS, that had prepared for at least 14,000 visas, won 5,650, while two-thirds of 233,000 applications within just seven days after were denied as the quota had been met.

To prepare an application, employers are required to submit a labor condition application first. Based on an approved application the companies then are allowed to apply for H-1B visas and actually they - lawfully - use one application to apply for more than one worker.

Hereafter companies employing large numbers of H-1B workers are required by federal law to make a statement of non-displacement of American workers. However, employers are exempt from this requirement if they pay H-1B workers at least $60,000 a year - a salary which is mostly below market rates. Consequently those firms, which primarily employ workers from India, are able to undercut the entire price competition by offering services at a lower cost compared to equally skilled American professionals.

Even if the officials in charge contest an inherent privilege of globally outsourcing companies highlighting the selection process as "completely random", and Congress most recently allowed an extra fee of $2,000 on big outsourcing companies to lapse, the latter now faces a bill introduced by Senators Richard Durbin of Illinois, and Charles H. Grassley of Iowa. The bill inter alia is meant to raise wage requirements, increase monitoring and enforcement and introduce other protections for American workers against further displacement.

Restaurants say No to Tips, Yes to Higher Prices

Prompted by a spurt of new minimum wage proposals in major cities, an expanding number of restaurateurs are experimenting with no tipping policies as a way to manage rising labor costs.

On October 15, 2015, Danny Meyer, renowned restaurateur and CEO of the Union Square Hospitality Group, announced that starting in late November, there will no longer be a tip line on patrons' checks and no need to leave additional cash at the table, coat check or bar. The new policy will kick start at The Modern Restaurant and will be instituted at the group's remaining New York eateries next year.

In Seattle, a fundamental inequity was found in restaurants where people who worked in the kitchen were paid about half as much as the people who worked with customers in front of the house. In San Francisco, menu prices at two restaurants include tips and taxes. An upscale restaurant in Manhattan tacks on a 20 percent administrative fee.

In some cities like New York, where tipping is subject to a welter of federal, state and local regulations and tax laws, eliminating it would simplify bookkeeping. Managers predict that it would allow them to better calibrate wages to reward employees based on the length of their service and the complexity of their jobs.

Although mandatory service charges are common around the world, restaurant tipping is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. There is a worry that potential diners will see significantly higher prices without realizing that they include gratuities. Restaurateurs also worry their best servers will leave as a result.

With further mandated wage increases scheduled, a hybrid model is coming into focus. This model includes guests being charged a mandatory 10 percent service charge and then encouraged to add a 5 percent to 10 percent gratuity. This means that restaurant owners are faced with giving servers a $2.50-an hour raise when they are already pulling in about $25 an hour in tips.

Since this new policy has gone into place, wages have risen between $3 and $12 an hour, with the lowest paid worker earning $15 an hour. Everyone, including part-timers, has health insurance and a 401(k) retirement plan.

While menus still state that the price includes service, the credit card slips now have a line that reads: "If you INSIST on leaving a tip, write it here."

 

Volkswagen Morale Still Strong

Sentiments proved resilient despite the scandal at the major automaker Volkswagen, which recently admitted equipping cars with software that enabled them to evade U.S. emissions tests. Despite the company facing heavy fines and the possibility of lost sales, business morale is still high. 

The Volkswagen scandal broke out last year when a clean energy advocacy group that had raised questions about emission levels in diesel vehicles commissioned a West Virginia laboratory. For more than a year, VW argued that it had been doing nothing wrong. Only recently did VW admit that it had installed "defeat devices" to get around emissions standards.

Volkswagen has announced a recall of 8.5 millions vehicles in Europe to remove the software, including 2.4 million in Germany, roughly 1.2 million in the U.K. and nearly one million in France. U.S. regulators have already ordered the company to recall nearly 500,000 vehicles. The recall in Europe will begin in January 2016. U.S. regulators are looking into a second piece of software that Volkswagen used to control emissions. They are studying what the software does, how it may affect vehicle performance and whether it may have been used to manipulate emissions. Volkswagen said it has withdrawn its application to register 2016 diesels in the United States.

Volkswagen is planning a massive savings to cope with the costs of the scandal; recalls, fines, compensation and lost sales. It has set aside $7.3 billion, but Credit Suisse analysts estimate the total cost to be about $87 billion in a worst-case scenario.

Remarkably, there has been an interesting reaction to the recent series of uncertainties and turmoil. Carsten Brzeski, chief economist at ING stated, "One should not interpret too much in a single confidence indicator but today's Ifo (Information and Forschung (research)) reading suggests that the German business community is filing the Volkswagen scandal as a one-off and also shrugs off the risk from a possible Chinese and emerging markets slowdown."

North Carolina Ranked #2 on Forbes' List of Best States for Business and Careers

Forbes magazine has named North Carolina as one of the top states for businesses and careers in the publication's 10th annual list. North Carolina moved up one spot from last year ending up at number two for the year. North Carolina is the only state to have appeared in the top five each year of the study. When compiling the list of states, Forbes looks at business costs such as labor, energy and taxes, and other factors such as labor supply, regulatory environment, economic climate, growth prospects and quality of life. North Carolina placed high on low business costs, its work force, and its pro-business regulatory environment. North Carolina alone has attracted more new facilities and expansions in 2014 than any other state.

Our very own BridgeCubator is one of these expansions. BridgeCubator assists individuals and businesses with cultivating relationships and creating new revenue streams for start-ups. It is a great resource for foreign corporations that want to successfully integrate into the United States business environment and culture.

German Conergy is going solar in NC

Conergy, a Germany-based company, recently secured a $55 million financing facility to support the construction of seven solar parks, making North Carolina the epicenter for its move from being a construction contractor for solar projects to being an independent power producer that owns and operates solar projects. The funds will be used to build the first set of assets it will own and operate under its new independent producer strategy.

Conergy is already a market leader for engineering, purchasing and construction contracts for solar projects in several U.S. states, but now it wants to take the next step by expanding into ownership. Eventually, Conergy would like to own and operate projects in California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and possibly Florida, which Conergy believes are states that allow solar to compete in their markets. The first projects Conergy has taken under direct ownership are a portfolio of five (5) ground mount PV plants in North Carolina, totaling 28 MW. Conergy completed construction of these five (5) installations in September. Also in September, it bought development rights for seven (7) more projects, totaling 36 MW, from Arizona-based Sunlight.

Its goal is to meet all requirements to qualify for the North Carolina state solar tax credit. It expects the solar farm to start commercial operations early next year. Their output will be sold to Duke Energy Carolinas under a 15-year Power Purchase Agreement.

Conergy will remain active in construction in the state next year after it finished building out the Sunlight purchases.

"German - American Mittelstand Forum" on December 8, 2015 in Stuttgart

Please save the date! December 8, 2015 from 8am to 3pm.
 

BridgehouseLaw LLP is pleased and honored to be part of the "German - American Mittelstand Forum" held at the Mercedes-Benz Arena "VIP-Lounge" in Stuttgart, Germany.
Careful planning, strong partners and networks on-the-ground are the keys to success when exploring new markets. This event will provide you with answers to  questions such as:
* What are the experiences of other German companies that have expanded to the United States?
* How do I choose a location, given how vast the U.S. is in size and market conditions?
BridgehouseLaw LLP will host a high-level U.S. delegation of representatives from industry and politics, development advisors and proven U.S. experts.
 

For more information on the event or to register please contact Henriette Morton via email: henriette.morton@bhlus.com

Online Data Protection: Consumer Protection or Fundamental Right?

On October 6, 2015, Europe's highest court, The European Court of Justice (ECJ), ruled that the long-standing international agreement called "Safe Harbor" was immediately invalid.  Safe Harbor allowed companies to transfer the digital data of individuals between the U.S. and the E.U., as long as there was an "adequate" level of privacy protection.

The European Commission's July 2000 decision to implement Safe Harbor was an attempt to regulate the E.U. and U.S.'s approach to privacy because the European Commission believed that an adequate level of protection lacked through domestic law or international commitments.  This level of protection gap stems from the different approaches the U.S. and E.U. have about online data security where the U.S. privacy is viewed as a consumer protection issue, but in Europe, privacy is viewed as a fundamental right, similar to rights granted in the U.S. Constitution.

Now with the ECJ's ruling, the EU may make their own determinations as to how companies will collect and use information gathered on its citizens, which removes the uniformity among the EU nations with regard to data privacy.  Moreover, because there are thousands of U.S. companies, which are certified under Safe Harbor, there is a concern that without the means to transfer data from Europe to the U.S., trans-Atlantic trade will suffer.

The ECJ's ruling suggests that there was not a problem with the Safe Harbor concept, but rather the lack of procedural safeguards in the Safe Harbor.  Therefore, until modifications to the Safe Harbor occur that may adequately protect the fundamental rights of the E.U. citizens whose data is being transferred to the U.S. and the U.S. passes legislation that restricts the power of the government to access personal data, there can no longer be transfers of data from the EU to the U.S.  

Workshop: Geschäftsreisen in die USA

Erfolgreiche Planung, Business Visa, Global Entry Program und interkulturelle Basics

In Kooperation mit der American Chamber of Commerce in Germany e.V., dem US-General-Konsulat Frankfurt/M.,  und der IHK Reutlingen, veranstaltet BridgehouseLaw in Tübingen einen Workshop zum Thema „Geschäftsreisen in die USA“. Die kostenfreie Halbtagesveranstaltung findet am Mittwoch, den 04. November 2015 ab 16:00 Uhr (Voraussichtliches Ende: 20:00 Uhr) in den Räumlichkeiten des Deutsch-Amerikanischen Institutes Tübingen statt. Auf dem Tagesprogramm stehen Vorträge von Referenten, unter anderem auch von Vertretern des US-Generalkonsulats, die tagtäglich von den Herausforderungen und Schwierigkeiten des Visaprozesses und den interkulturellen Unterschieden betroffen sind. Der Workshop soll eine grundlegende Einführung in die wichtigsten Themen vermitteln und offene Fragen und Unsicherheiten in Bezug auf Geschäftsreisen in die USA beseitigen.

Anmeldung erforderlich bis Fr. 30.10. unter sekretariat@dai-tuebingen.de,

die Anzahl der Plätze ist begrenzt

Das Tagesprogramm und das Anmeldeformular finden sie hier  https://www.dropbox.com/s/qvra39khipzh4oy/Gesch%C3%A4ftsreise-Workshop.pdf?dl=0

Beschreibung d.a.i:

Wer häufig beruflich in die USA reist, steht vor vielen Fragen, die nicht nur die Einreise betreffen, sondern auch das professionelle Verhalten vor Ort. Was ist die TSA? Welches Visum benötige ich (B-, H-, L- oder E-Visum?) oder kann ich sogar ohne Visum reisen? Dieser Workshop, bei dem auch Vertreter des US-Generalkonsulats anwesend sein werden, gibt Ihnen eine grundlegende Einführung in die wichtigsten Themen.