A technical defect was identified as a possible cause of the vehicle fire. (Photo: © AMH / Manfred Grünwald)
Read aloud:
18 May 2026
The fact that other causes for a defect are possible is not an excuse for the seller for up to twelve months after the purchase. Rather, the seller must prove that the defect stems from other causes, the Federal Court of Justice clarified.
If a vehicle develops a defect shortly after purchase , the question regularly arises whether this defect was already present at the time of delivery. A provision in the law ( § 477 of the German Civil Code, BGB ) helps buyers: it presumes that the defect was present at the time of purchase if it appears within twelve months . The fact that other causes might be possible is not a sufficient counterargument.
The Federal Court of Justice has thus confirmed its jurisprudence in two recent rulings on consumer goods sales. While the proceedings concerned the old version of Section 477 of the German Civil Code (BGB), the reversal of the burden of proof regulated therein is largely unchanged in Section 477 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the BGB . Only the time limit has been extended from six to twelve months.
Case 1: Just a few weeks after purchase, a used car burned to the ground in a public parking lot. The comprehensive insurance company covered the damage and subsequently demanded compensation from the car dealer.
Case 2: A used scooter caused severe oscillations during a highway drive the day after delivery. The rider lost control, crashed, and was injured. He subsequently demanded, among other things, rescission of the purchase agreement, compensation for pain and suffering , and damages.
Operations management
Operations management
Operations management
Both buyers had been unsuccessful in the lower courts . The Higher Regional Courts had demanded that the buyers each prove the existence of the defects at the time of purchase – even though Section 477 of the German Civil Code (BGB) places the burden of proof on the sellers for twelve months. The courts reasoned that, in addition to a technical defect, other causes were also possible, as determined by experts in each case – for example, animal bites or arson in the case of a car, and driving behavior, crosswinds, or uneven road surfaces in the case of a scooter.
The Federal Court of Justice saw things differently and sided with the buyers. The Higher Regional Courts had disregarded Section 477 of the German Civil Code (BGB) , the highest German civil court clarified. This provision applies as soon as a "detrimental condition" appears within twelve months and a circumstance attributable to the seller can be considered as a possible cause . Whether other causes are conceivable is irrelevant . In other words: If causes from the seller's sphere of risk are possible, this is to their detriment.
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) emphasized that the presumption of fault under Section 477 of the German Civil Code (BGB) only ceases to apply if only other causes, not attributable to the seller, remain as possible explanations. This was not the case in either instance: In the case of the vehicle fire, a technical defect was identified as a possible cause. The oscillations of the scooter could have been triggered by an imbalance in the front wheel.
Therefore, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) referred the cases back to the respective Higher Regional Courts. There, the proceedings will be retried, and the sellers can each present evidence to the contrary , proving that the defects are due to a later cause beyond their control.
Federal Court of Justice, judgments of May 6, 2026, case numbers VIII ZR 73/24 and VIII ZR 257/23
The advisors at the Chambers of Crafts will be happy to help you with any legal questions!
DHB now also available digitally! Simply click here and register for the digital German Crafts Journal (DHB)!
Newsletter
Write a comment