Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts in Germany

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 36))

Abstract

The question whether or not a price-related term can be subject to a fairness test is highly debated in Germany. The judiciary differentiates between principal and ancillary price terms; only ancillary price terms shall be subject to a fairness test. However, the results of this approach are at least partly unconvincing. A preferable approach is presented by parts of the academic literature: the decisive measure is whether a free-market competition can be established with regard to the respective clause. Only if this is the case a fairness test is not justified since there is no reason for a judicial control of a decision based on freedom of contract.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See especially BVerfG, 19.10.1993 – 1 BvR 567/89, 1 BvR 1044/89 = BVerfGE 89, 214, para 51 ff.; BVerfG, 5.8.1994 – 1 BvR 1402/89 = NJW 1994, 2749, para 20 ff.; for further references see Busche (2015), preliminary notes to § 145 BGB, para 3.

  2. 2.

    On the administrative level effective competition is mainly ensured by bans on cartels, a merger control as well as the control of abusive practices of dominant or powerful companies. On the federal level this control is exercised by the Bundeskartellamt, an independent competition authority for further information see http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/EN/AboutUs/aboutus_node.html;jsessionid=D18251E19F454885968F4FEEDBA121D6.2_cid387 (available on 4.2.2018).

  3. 3.

    See Busche (2015), preliminary notes to § 145 BGB, para 2 with further references.

  4. 4.

    As to the general tendency of a materialisation (Materialisierung) of German contract law see especially Canaris (2000), pp. 295 ff.

  5. 5.

    See above Fn. 1; for further references with regard to the controversial perception of these decisions see Busche (2015), preliminary notes to § 145 BGB, para 3 note 13.

  6. 6.

    The Federal Constitutional Court mainly relied on the general freedom to act (allgemeine Handlungsfreiheit), as stipulated in Art 2 (1) Grundgesetz (Basic Law).

  7. 7.

    See on the one hand BGH, 28.2.1989 – IX ZR 130/88 = BGHZ 107, 92 and BGH, 16.3.1989 – IX ZR 171/88 = BGH NJW 1989, 1605 and on the other hand and subsequent to the Federal Constitutional Court’s decisions BGH, 24.2.1994 – IX ZR 227/93 = NJW 1994, 1341.

  8. 8.

    See e.g. Leuschner, AGB-Recht für Verträge zwischen Unternehmen – Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Haftungsbeschränkungen, Abschlussbericht vom 30. September 2014, available on 1.2.2018 at http://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Fachinformationen/Abschlussbericht-AGB-Forschungsprojekt.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. In this survey, commissioned by the German ministry of Justice (by then: Bundesministerium für Justiz, today: Bundesministerium für Justiz und Verbraucherschutz), Leuschner, who analysed French, English, US-American, Austrian, Swiss and Polish Law comes to the conclusion (see p. 10) that under German Law businesses cannot effectively limit their liability by way of SCT.

  9. 9.

    See e.g. RGZ 20, p. 115, 116; RGZ 62, 264, 266.

  10. 10.

    See e.g. BGH, 6.3.1956 – I ZR 154/54 = BGHZ 20, 164, 167; BGH, 28.2.1973 – IV ZR 34/71 = BGHZ 60, 243.

  11. 11.

    See BGH, 7.7.1976 – IV ZR 229/74, NJW 1976, 2345 para 18 with further references.

  12. 12.

    See BGH, 7.7.1976 – IV ZR 229/74, NJW 1976, 2345 para 18 with further references.

  13. 13.

    See BGH, 7.7.1976 – IV ZR 229/74, NJW 1976, 2345 para 18 with further references.

  14. 14.

    See e.g. Ständige Deputation des deutschen Juristentages (ed.), Verhandlungen des 50. Deutschen Juristentages Hamburg 1974, vol. II (session reports) part H, 1974.

  15. 15.

    Gesetz zur Regelung des Rechts der Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen vom 9.12.1976, BGBl. 1976 I, p. 3317.

  16. 16.

    Whereas § 11 AGBG (today: § 309 BGB) contains a “black” list of terms prohibited without discretion of the judge, whereas § 10 stipulates a “grey” list, requiring the court to determine, with regard to the term in question whether it is inappropriate and therefore void.

  17. 17.

    See above all BGH, 8.3.1984 – VII ZR 349/82 = BGHZ 90, 273, 278; see also BGH, 20.4.1993 – X ZR 67/92 = BGHZ 122, 241.

  18. 18.

    For references see the draft bill of the later AGBG, BT-Drs. 7/3919, 6.8.1975, p. 27 ff.

  19. 19.

    See Gesetz zur Modernisierung des Schuldrechts vom 26.11.2001, BGBl. 2001 I, p. 3138.

  20. 20.

    See e.g. BGH, 10.10.2013 – VII ZR 19/12 = NJW 2014, 206.

  21. 21.

    For references see Leuschner, AGB-Recht für Verträge zwischen Unternehmen – Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Haftungsbeschränkungen, Abschlussbericht vom 30. September 2014, (see above Fn. 1), p. 11 n. 1; see also Leuschner (2015a, b), pp. 1045 and 1326; Maier-Reimer and Niemeyer (2015), p. 1713; Wittuhn (2014), p. 131; Kästle (2014) p. 288; Kähler (2015), p. 450.

  22. 22.

    But see the (not officially submitted) draft bill for a revision of the rules on the judicial control of standard terms (Gesetzgebungsvorschlag zur Änderung des AGB-Rechts im unternehmerischen Geschäftsverkehr) proposed by the (private) Frankfurt initiative for the revision of the rules on the judicial control of standard contract terms (Frankfurter Initiative zur Fortentwicklung des AGB-Rechts), available on 1.2.2018 at http://www.zvei.org/Downloads/AGB-Initiative-Positionspapier-Stand-04-2015.pdf.

  23. 23.

    Wurmnest (2016), § 307 para 1; Coester (2013), § 307 para 283.

  24. 24.

    Eckelt (2018), § 307 para 165; Schmidt (2018), § 307 para 68.

  25. 25.

    BT-Drs. 14/6040, p. 154.

  26. 26.

    The Standard Terms and Conditions Act (Gesetz zur Regelung des Rechts der Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen v. 9.12.1976, BGBl. 1976 I, p. 3317) was repealed on 1 January 2002 whereby its provisions were essentially implemented in the BGB as part of the Act to modernise the law of obligations (Gesetz zur Modernisierung des Schuldrechts v. 26.11.2001, BGBl. 2001 I, p. 3138). Thus, the content of § 8 AGBG and § 307 (3) St. 1 BGB is identical.

  27. 27.

    BT-Drs. 7/3919, p. 22.

  28. 28.

    Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ 1993, L 95/29.

  29. 29.

    See Coester (2013), § 307 para 283.

  30. 30.

    See BGH, 9.5.2017 – XI ZR 308/15 = NJW 2017, 2538 para 23; BGH, 22.12.2012 – VII ZR 222/12 = NJW 2013, 856 para 16.

  31. 31.

    BGH, 5.10.2017 – III ZR 56/17 = WM 2017, 2212 para 15; BGH, 22.9.2016 – III ZR 264/15 = NJW-RR 2016, 1387 para 12; BGH, 9.10.20214 – III ZR 32/14 = NJW 2015, 328 para 37; BGH, 9.4.2014 – VIII ZR 404/12 = BGHZ 200, 362 = NJW 2014, 2269 para 43; BGH, 13.1.2011 – III ZR 78/10 = NJW 2011, 1726 para 15; BGH, 29.4.2010 – Xa ZR 5/09 = NJW 2010, 1958 para 20; BGH, 12.6.2001 – XI ZR 274/00 = BGHZ 148, 74 = NJW 2001, 2635 para 14; BGH, 24.3.1999 – IV ZR 90/98 = BGHZ 141, 137 = NJW 1999, 2279 para 27; BGH, 13.7.1994 – IV ZR 107/93 = BGHZ 127, 35 = NJW 1994, 2693 para 15; BGH, 30.11.1993 – XI ZR 80/93 = BGHZ 124, 254 = NJW 1994, 318 Rn 12; BGH, 23.6.1993 – IV ZR 135/92 = BGHZ 123, 83 = NJW 1993, 2369 para 10.

  32. 32.

    BGH, 5.10.2017 – III ZR 56/17 = WM 2017, 2212 para 15; BGH, 13.1.2011 – III ZR 78/10 = NJW 2011, 1726 para 15.

  33. 33.

    BGH, 5.10.2017 – III ZR 56/17 = WM 2017, 2212 para 15; BGH, 9.10.20214 – III ZR 32/14 = NJW 2015, 328 para 37; BGH, 9.4.2014 – VIII ZR 404/12 = BGHZ 200, 362 = NJW 2014, 2269 para 44; BGH, 6.7.2011 – VIII ZR 293/10 = NJW 2011, 3510 para 10; BGH, 13.1.2011 – III ZR 78/10 = NJW 2011, 1726 para 16; BGH, 29.4.2010 – Xa ZR 5/09 = NJW 2010, 1958 para 20; BGH, 12.6.2001 – XI ZR 274/00 = BGHZ 148, 74 = NJW 2001, 2635 para 14; BGH, 24.3.1999 – IV ZR 90/98 = BGHZ 141, 137 = NJW 1999, 2279 para 27; BGH, 13.7.1994 – IV ZR 107/93 = BGHZ 127, 35 = NJW 1994, 2693 para 15; BGH, 30.11.1993 – XI ZR 80/93 = BGHZ 124, 254 = NJW 1994, 318 Rn 12; BGH, 23.6.1993 – IV ZR 135/92 = BGHZ 123, 83 = NJW 1993, 2369 para 10.

  34. 34.

    BGH, 30.11.1993 – XI ZR 80/93 = BGHZ 124, 254 = NJW 1994, 318 Rn 12; BGH, 24.11.1988 – III ZR 188/87 = BGHZ, 106, 42 = NJW 1989, 222; para 17; BGH, 6.2.1985 – VIII ZR 61/84 = BGHZ 93, 358 = NJW 1985, 3013 para 12.

  35. 35.

    BGH, 5.10.2017 – III ZR 56/17 = WM 2017, 2212 para 15; BGH, 14.5.2014 – VIII ZR 114/13 = BGHZ 201, 230 = NJW 2014, 2708 para 15; BGH, 9.4.2014 – VIII ZR 404/12 = BGHZ 200, 362 = NJW 2014, 2269 para 44; BGH, 25.9.2013 – VIII ZR 206/12 = NJW 2014, 209 para 17; BGH, 6.7.2011 – VIII ZR 293/10 = NJW 2011, 3510 para 10; BGH, 29.4.2010 – Xa ZR 5/09 = NJW 2010, 1958 para 20; BGH, 12.6.2001 – XI ZR 274/00 = BGHZ 148, 74 = NJW 2001, 2635 para 14; BGH, 24.3.1999 – IV ZR 90/98 = BGHZ 141, 137 = NJW 1999, 2279 para 27; BGH, 13.7.1994 – IV ZR 107/93 = BGHZ 127, 35 = NJW 1994, 2693 para 15; BGH, 23.6.1993 – IV ZR 135/92 = BGHZ 123, 83 = NJW 1993, 2369 para 10.

  36. 36.

    BGH, 4.7.2017 – XI ZR 562/15 = NJW 2017, 2986 para 25; BGH, 13.5.2014 – XI ZR 405/12 = BGHZ 201, 168 = NJW 2014, 2420 para 25.

  37. 37.

    BGH, 9.7.1981 – VII ZR 139/80 = BGHZ 81, 229 = NJW 1981, 2351 para 10 ff.

  38. 38.

    BGH, 30.10.1991 – VIII ZR 51/91 = BGHZ 115, 391 = NJW 1992, 746 para 14.

  39. 39.

    BGH, 19.2.1998 – III ZR 106/97 = BGHZ 138, 100 = NJW 1998, 1786 para 26.

  40. 40.

    BGH, 17.12.2013 – XI ZR 66/13 = BGHZ 199, 281 = NJW 2014, 922 para 12.

  41. 41.

    BGH, 6.7.2011 – VIII ZR 293/10 = NJW 2011, 3510; BGH, 25.9.2013 – VIII ZR 2016/12 = NJW 2014, 209; divergent the former decision OLG Nürnberg, 27.2.1997 – 8 U 3754/96 = NJW 1997, 2186 para 15.

  42. 42.

    However, the Federal Court of Justice has left open the question whether a comparable standard term is subject to a fairness test if the warranty was not provided in return for payment but as an additional (“voluntary”) warranty, BGH, 12.12.2007 – VIII ZR 187/06 = NJW 2008, 843 para 12.

  43. 43.

    BGH, 6.7.2011 – VIII ZR 293/10 = NJW 2011, 3510 para 19 f.; BGH, 25.9.2013 – VIII ZR 2016/12 = NJW 2014, 209 para 19.

  44. 44.

    BGH, 9.10.2014 – III ZR 32/14 = NJW 2015, 328 para 38.

  45. 45.

    OLG Düsseldorf, 18.7.2002 – I-6 U 218/01, 6 U 218/01 = NJW-RR 2002, 1716 para 5. For the development of this principle by the Federal Court of Justice see Fn. 47 ff.

  46. 46.

    The cosmetic repairs are the necessary periodic refurbishments or repainting of the walls which—according to the statutory provisions—the landlord is obliged to undertake (§ 535 (1) St. 2 BGB).

  47. 47.

    See BGH, 27.5.2009 – VIII ZR 302/07 = BGHZ 181, 188 = NJW 2009, 2590 para 20 with further references.

  48. 48.

    BGH, 7.6.1989 – VIII ZR 91/88 = BGHZ 108, 1 = NJW 1989, 2247 para 16 f. (with reference to the former §§ 536, 548 BGB which are the preceding provisions of §§ 535, 538 BGB).

  49. 49.

    BGH, 22.12.2012 – VII ZR 222/12 = NJW 2013, 856.

  50. 50.

    BGH, 22.12.2012 – VII ZR 222/12 = NJW 2013, 856 para 17.

  51. 51.

    BGH, 8.11.2016 – XI ZR 552/15 = BGHZ 212, 363 = NJW 2017, 1461.

  52. 52.

    “The loan contract obliges the lender to make available to the borrower a sum of money in the agreed amount. The borrower is obliged to pay interest owed and, at the due date, to repay the loan made available.”

  53. 53.

    BGH, 8.11.2016 – XI ZR 552/15 = BGHZ 212, 363 = NJW 2017, 1461 para 22 with further references to diverging decisions of the lower courts.

  54. 54.

    BGH, 9.5.2017 – XI ZR 308/15 = NJW 2017, 2538 para 21 ff., 25 ff.

  55. 55.

    BGH, 13.5.2014 – XI ZR 405/12 = BGHZ 201, 168 = NJW 2014, 2420 para 24 ff., 26 ff.

  56. 56.

    BGH, 4.7.2017 – XI ZR 562/15 = NJW 2017, 2986 para 23 ff., 28 ff.

  57. 57.

    BGH, 30.11.1993 – XI ZR 80/93 = BGHZ 124, 254 = NJW 1994, 318 para 14 ff.

  58. 58.

    BGH, 21.10.1997 – XI ZR 5/97 = BGHZ 137, 43 = NJW 1998, 309 para 9 ff.

  59. 59.

    BGH, 5.10.2017 – III ZR 56/17 = BeckRS 2017, 128867.

  60. 60.

    BGH, 5.10.2017 – III ZR 56/17 = BeckRS 2017, 128867 para 23 f.

  61. 61.

    LG Düsseldorf, 14.12.2016 - 12 O 311/15.

  62. 62.

    BGH, 5.10.2017 – III ZR 56/17 = BeckRS 2017, 128867 para 25.

  63. 63.

    BGH, 13.7.2005 – IV ZR 83/04 = NJW-RR 2005, 1479.

  64. 64.

    BGH, 13.7.2005 – IV ZR 83/04 = NJW-RR 2005, 1479 para 14 ff., 17.

  65. 65.

    LG Köln, 15.11.2001 – 7 O 128/01 = MDR 2002, 630.

  66. 66.

    BGH, 30.5.2017 – VIII ZR 31/17 = NJW-RR 2017, 981.

  67. 67.

    BGH, 30.5.2017 – VIII ZR 31/17 = NJW-RR 2017, 981 para 7.

  68. 68.

    BGH, 24.9.1998 – III ZR 219/97 = NJW 1999, 864 para 2.

  69. 69.

    BGH, 19.11.1991 – X ZR 63/90 = BGHZ 116, 117 = NJW 1992, 688.

  70. 70.

    BGH, 19.11.1991 – X ZR 63/90 = BGHZ 116, 117 = NJW 1992, 688 para 17 ff., 19 f.

  71. 71.

    BGH, 19.11.1991 – X ZR 63/90 = BGHZ 116, 117 = NJW 1992, 688 para 17 ff.

  72. 72.

    BGH, 19.11.1991 – X ZR 63/90 = BGHZ 116, 117 = NJW 1992, 688 para 19 f.

  73. 73.

    BGH, 5.6.1984 – X ZR 75/83 = BGHZ 91, 316 = NJW 1984, 2160.

  74. 74.

    BGH, 19.11.1991 – X ZR 63/90 = BGHZ 116, 117 = NJW 1992, 688 para 20.

  75. 75.

    BGH, 8.10.1998 – III ZR 278/97 = NJW-RR 1999, 125 para 17 ff., 23 with a reference to the aforementioned decision BGHZ 116, 117 (Fn. 69).

  76. 76.

    BGH, 14.10.1997 – XI ZR 167/96 = BGHZ 137, 27 = NJW 1998, 383.

  77. 77.

    BGH, 14.10.1997 – XI ZR 167/96 = BGHZ 137, 27 = NJW 1998, 383 para 14.

  78. 78.

    BeckOGK/Eckelt, 1.10.2017, § 307 para 165 ff., 174, 178 ff.

  79. 79.

    Billing (2006), pp. 151 ff., 157 ff., 166 f.

  80. 80.

    Dylla-Krebs (1990), pp. 185 ff., 279 ff.

  81. 81.

    Dylla-Krebs (1990), pp. 152 ff.

  82. 82.

    Expressly Dylla-Krebs (1990), pp. 218 ff.

  83. 83.

    Wurmnest (2016), § 307 para 12, 15 whereby the author seems to consider this approach to be in line with the jurisprudence’s.

  84. 84.

    Drexl (1998), p. 359; Fervers (2014), p. 511; Coester (2013), § 307 para 320 ff.; Stoffels (2001), pp. 847 f.; see also Börner (1997), pp. 597 f.

  85. 85.

    Coester (2013), § 307 para 320; Drexl (1998), p. 359.

  86. 86.

    Fastrich, Richterliche Inhaltskontrolle im Privatrecht, 1992, pp. 80 ff., 86; Drexl (1998), pp. 329 ff.; Canaris (2000), p. 324.

  87. 87.

    Wurmnest (2016), § 307 para 15.

  88. 88.

    Fn. 80 f.

  89. 89.

    BGH, 5.10.2017 – III ZR 56/17 = BeckRS 2017, 128867; see Fn. 59 ff.

  90. 90.

    LG Düsseldorf, 14.12.2016 - 12 O 311/15, see Fn. 61.

  91. 91.

    Fn. 63 f.

  92. 92.

    Fn. 65 ff.

  93. 93.

    Fn. 75.

  94. 94.

    BGH, 30.5.2017 – VIII ZR 31/17 = NJW-RR 2017, 981, see Fn. 66.

  95. 95.

    LG Düsseldorf, 14.12.2016 - 12 O 311/15, see Fn. 61.

  96. 96.

    BGH, 13.7.2005 – IV ZR 83/04 = NJW-RR 2005, 1479, see Fn. 63 f.

  97. 97.

    It is not obvious according to the facts of the case which contractual construction had been used by the insurance company.

  98. 98.

    BGH, 14.10.1997 – XI ZR 167/96 = BGHZ 137, 27 = NJW 1998, 383, see Fn. 76 f.

  99. 99.

    BGH, 24.9.1998 – III ZR 219/97 = NJW 1999, 864, see Fn. 68.

  100. 100.

    BGH, 19.11.1991 – X ZR 63/90 = BGHZ 116, 117 = NJW 1992, 688, see Fn. 69 ff.

  101. 101.

    EuGH, 30.4.2014, C-26/13, EuZW 2014, 506; EuGH, 23.4.2015, CJEU Judgment of 23 April 2015, Van Hove, C-96/14, EU:C:2015:262, EuZW 2015, 516.

  102. 102.

    See Börner (1997), p. 597 who criticizes the differentiation criteria used by the jurisprudence as “descriptive”; Stoffels (2001), p. 847 who criticizes the extensive collection of cases and points out the risk to lose sight of the purpose of the fairness test.

  103. 103.

    BGH, 24.9.1998 – III ZR 219/97 = NJW 1999, 864, see Fn. 68, 93.

  104. 104.

    BGH, 19.11.1991 – X ZR 63/90 = BGHZ 116, 117 = NJW 1992, 688, see Fn. 69.

  105. 105.

    BGH, 13.5.2014 – XI ZR 405/12 = BGHZ 201, 168 = NJW 2014, 2420 para 38; BGH, 7.6.2011 – XI ZR 388/10 = BGHZ 190, 66 = NJW 2011, 2640 para 20.

  106. 106.

    Fn. 63 f.

  107. 107.

    Fn. 65 ff.

  108. 108.

    Fn. 75.

  109. 109.

    BGH, 18.3.2015 – VIII ZR 185/14 = BGHZ 204, 302 = NJW 2015, 1594; BGH, 23.6.2004 – VIII ZR 361/03 = NJW 2004, 2586; an illustrative overview is given by Lehmann-Richter (2016), pp. 529 ff.; see also the references given by Eisenschmid (2017), § 535 para 72.

  110. 110.

    BGH, 5.10.2017 – III ZR 56/17 = BeckRS 2017, 128867 Rn 23; BGH, 19.11.1991 – X ZR 63/90 = BGHZ 116, 117 = NJW 1992, 688 para 19 f.

  111. 111.

    “To the extent that the terms have not become part of the contract or are ineffective, the contents of the contract are determined by the statutory provisions.”

  112. 112.

    BGH, 17.11.2016 – VII ZR 6/16 = BGHZ 213, 18 = NJW 2017, 662 para 32; BGH, 6.4.2016 – VIII ZR 79/15 = BGHZ 209, 337 = NJW 2017, 320; BGH, 15.4.2015 – VIII ZR 59/14 = BGHZ 205, 43 = NJW 2015, 2566; Schmidt (2018), § 306 para 12; Basedow (2016), § 306 para 22 f.

  113. 113.

    See under Sect. 3.2.

  114. 114.

    See LG Düsseldorf, 14.12.2016 - 12 O 311/15 on the one hand and BGH, 5.10.2017 – III ZR 56/17 = BeckRS 2017, 128867 on the other hand.

  115. 115.

    Fervers (2014), p. 511.

References

  • Basedow J (2016) Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, vol 2, 7th edn. C.H.Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Billing T (2006) Billing, Die Bedeutung von § 307 III 1 BGB im System der AGB-rechtlichen Inhaltskontrolle. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Börner A (1997) Die “Heilung” von AGB durch die Berücksichtigung vertragsabschlußbegleitender Umstände nach § 24a Nr 3 AGBG. Juristenzeitung:595–601

    Google Scholar 

  • Busche J (2015) Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, vol 1, 7th edn. C.H.Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Canaris C (2000) Wandlungen des Schuldvertragsrechts - Tendenzen zu seiner “Materialisierung”. Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 200:273–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Coester M (2013) J. von Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. Sellier De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexl J (1998) Die wirtschaftliche Selbstbestimmung des Verbrauchers: eine Studie zum Privat- und Wirtschaftsrecht unter Berücksichtigung gemeinschaftsrechtlicher Bezüge. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Dylla-Krebs C (1990) Schranken der Inhaltskontrolle allgemeiner Geschäftsbedingungen: eine systematische Abgrenzung kontrollfreier von kontrollunterworfenen Klauseln. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckelt M (2018) beck-online.GROSSKOMMENTAR, updated 15/7/2018. C.H.Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenschmid N (2017) Schmidt-Futterer, Mietrecht, 13th edn. C.H.Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Fervers M (2014) Anmerkung zum Urteil des EuGH v. 30.4.2014, C-26/13 (Kasler ua/OTP Jelzalogbank Zrt). Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht:510–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Kähler L (2015) Aushandlung von AGB-Klauseln aufgrund begründeten Verhandlungsverzichts. Der Betriebsberater:450–455

    Google Scholar 

  • Kästle F (2014) M&A-Verträge unterliegen nicht der AGB-Kontrolle. Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht:288–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann-Richter A (2016) Beschaffenheitsvereinbarung, Freizeichnung oder Abwälzung - Anforderungen an wirksame Schönheitsreparaturklauseln in der Wohnraummiete. Wohnungswirtschaft und Mietrecht:529–538

    Google Scholar 

  • Leuschner L (2015a) Reformvorschläge für die AGB-Kontrolle im unternehmerischen Rechtsverkehr. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 36:1045–1052

    Google Scholar 

  • Leuschner L (2015b) Noch einmal: Reformvorschläge für die AGB-Kontrolle im unternehmerischen Rechtsverkehr. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 36:1326–1332

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier-Reimer G, Niemeyer C (2015) Unternehmenskaufvertrag und AGB-Recht. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift:1713–1719

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt H (2018) Beck’scher Online-Kommentar, 47th edn, updated 1/8/2018. C.H.Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoffels M (2001) Schranken der Inhaltskontrolle. Juristenzeitung:843–849

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittuhn G (2014) Unternehmenskaufverträge und das Recht der Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen. Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht:131–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Wurmnest W (2016) Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, vol 2, 7th edn. C.H.Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Faculty of Law, Chair of Civil Law, Civil Procedure, European Private Law and Procedure, Munich, Germany

    Matthias Fervers & Beate Gsell

Authors
  1. Matthias Fervers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beate Gsell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Matthias Fervers or Beate Gsell .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Yeşim M. Atamer

  2. Faculty of Law, Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Yeşim M. Atamer

  3. Faculty of Law, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Pascal Pichonnaz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Fervers, M., Gsell, B. (2020). Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts in Germany. In: Atamer, Y.M., Pichonnaz, P. (eds) Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 36. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23057-9_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23057-9_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23056-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23057-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation