Auer Witte Thiel comment on judgment to the net police Munich February 2012. The Landgericht Stendal stated the cost equalization Agreement agreed in a contract of insurance with a so-called net police (KAV) effective ruling of January 19, 2012. Customers are thus also after termination or cancellation of the insurance contract to pay the outstanding instalments required, as it provides the KAV for the acquisition and selling costs of the mediation. Therefore, appropriate agreements are SG & a bypass business, nor a violation of the Zillmerungsverbot in the sense of 169 5. In case the decision of the defendant had completed in 2009 a unit-linked annuity insurance and at the same time a cost equalization agreement, which spread over 48 monthly instalments in the amount of 36.75 euros, obliged him to pay the acquisition and equipment costs amounting to a total of 1764 euros. The form signed by the defendant included a note on the separation of the two treaties, as well as on the scheme, that upon termination of the Police who persists with KAV and monthly to pay the agreed acquisition and equipment costs are.
The policyholder announced the insurance after seven months and stopped the payments with regard to the rates for the KAV. These were called for on the part of the insurance company, this referred to the fact, that the notice agreed touches not the regulations regarding the cost equalization agreement. The defendant, however, took the stand, the termination would both contracts concern, also the KAV is an ineffective bypass business. The District Court followed by judgment of 28 June 2011 believes the insurance company, whereupon the defendant lodged an appeal. The Stendal District Court upheld the decision of the District Court and explained the cost equalization agreement in particular three reasons for effective. Ineffectiveness of arises not from 169, subsection 5 VVG, and this the KAV as a legal basis for the final because at a net police the buy-back value is calculated separately and Is to consider setting up costs separately.
Beware of rent reductions the annual operating expenses provides many tenants resentment, because landlords often request additional payments, where settlement in each case should be examined closely. Author may find it difficult to be quoted properly. Special attention is required when a reduction of in rent was recognised in the period in question. The real estate portal myimmo.de explains the relationship. The gross rent by a certain percentage will be reduced in the case of a rent reduction due to defects in the leased object. This is however also apply to the statement of operating costs.
Often give landlord a rent reduction while and take into account the operating costs advance payment, the corresponding shares however during the payroll run for the entire year out of eight. According to a recent decision of the Federal Court of Justice, is in this case the tenant in law and may require an appropriate reduction. Generally the net rents, and the corresponding operating costs apply as the calculation basis. The landlord is therefore obliged, the corresponding reduction in rent in the calculation To include the cost of ownership. Only on the basis of the annual statement of accounts, it is clear whether payments are due on the part of the lessee, or if the landlord has to repay even. The German tenants Association welcomes the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice, because it creates clarity in relation to the calculation of the reduction in rent.
Communication with debtors is more important than ever while not a legal relationship as E.g. a contract normally to letters of formal notice, because both parties comply with their contractual obligations. A party does not meet the contractual obligations, by she didn’t pay such as the Bill, is a contract problem. A reminder takes over the task to inform debtors on their payment obligation. This is done in practice usually as a first step by means of a so-called payment reminder. A reminder is a unilateral request of the creditor, which will be sent to debtors, warning recipients. A reminder obtained after the due date of an invoice, that debtor appears legally in default if the reminder is not expendable.
To reduce the number of letters of formal notice, companies in cooperation with collection agency took pro-active steps such as for example the use of debit or a previous credit check often. Companies send itself often only one or two letters of formal notice and then type the Editing a debt collection company as the General accounts receivable and collection GmbH (ADU collection), that further professional care in the recovery of the debts in the pre-trial and in the debt collection proceedings. 286 paragraph 2 four cases are defined in no. 1 to 4 German civil code (BGB), where a warning is unnecessary and the debtor without they fall into arrears. 1 reminders are expendable for the creditors, if a specific calendar date for the payment is stated in the invoice. It is contractually fixed and up to this date, debtors have provide their service. Purchase contracts defines the due date, for example with the following sentence: the purchase price is payable up to May 31, 2010. 2. the Expendability of the reminder occurs when a payment deadline is agreed in the Bill whereby the payment date on the basis of the calendar can be calculated.