Judgments of the BGH from May 6, 2026 – Ref. VIII ZR 73/24 and VIII ZR 257/23
A defect shortly after purchase is particularly annoying for buyers – and quickly leads to the decisive question in case of dispute: Who actually has to prove that the defect was already present upon delivery? With two judgments on May 6, 2026 (Ref. VIII ZR 73/24 and VIII ZR 257/23), the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has significantly strengthened the position of consumers in consumer goods purchases. The focus is on the reversal of the burden of proof according to § 477 BGB. The BGH clarified that this legal presumption must not be interpreted too narrowly to the buyer’s detriment – a point of particular practical importance when buying new and used vehicles.
Principle in Civil Procedure: Whoever wants something must prove it
In civil procedure, the basic rule is: Each party must prove the facts on which they base their claims. In purchase law, this usually means: The buyer must demonstrate and prove that a defect was already present in the item at the time of delivery (§§ 434 ff. BGB). In practice, especially with technical products (e.g., vehicles, electronics), providing this proof is often difficult, as the technical cause of a problem often can only be clarified through complex investigations.
§ 477 BGB: Legal Presumption in Favor of Consumers
To protect consumers, the law contains a facilitation in consumer goods purchases: If a defect appears within one year after delivery, it is presumed that the item was already defective upon delivery. (§ 477 BGB). Practically, this means that:
- The buyer does not need to provide full technical proof that the cause existed at the time of delivery.
- Instead, the seller must refute the presumption and demonstrate or prove that the defect arose only after delivery (e.g., due to improper handling or an external circumstance).
Important: The reversal of the burden of proof applies only to consumer goods purchases (consumer buys from entrepreneur). It generally does not apply when a consumer buys from a private individual.
BGH, Ref. VIII ZR 73/24: Used car catches fire
In the case VIII ZR 73/24 a consumer purchased a used car in 2020 from a commercial dealer. A few weeks after handover, the vehicle caught fire in a public parking lot and was completely destroyed. The comprehensive insurance covered the damage and subsequently claimed against the seller.
The court of appeal rejected the application of § 477 BGB. Reason: It cannot be excluded that the fire was due to other causes (e.g., arson or external influences).
BGH: Presumption is not excluded by mere theoretical alternatives
The BGH overturned the decision and referred the matter back. According to its opinion, it is sufficient for § 477 BGB that a defect manifestation appeared within the one-year period. The buyer (or the insurance) does not have to prove the specific technical cause of the fire. The statutory presumption should not be denied just because other causes are theoretically conceivable.
The BGH emphasized the purpose of § 477 BGB: Consumers should not fail because they must technically clarify the exact – often hard to determine – cause of the damage comprehensively.
BGH, Ref. VIII ZR 257/23: Noticeable driving behavior in motor scooter
In the case VIII ZR 257/23 it concerned a motor scooter where driving behavior problems arose after purchase. The lower court did not want to apply § 477 BGB because the abnormalities could also be due to other causes, such as crosswinds, road unevenness, or individual driving behavior.
BGH: Buyer does not have to exclude all alternative causes
Again, the BGH overturned the decision. It clarified: § 477 BGB is not excluded just because other causes besides a material defect appear possible. It is enough if a condition appears within the one-year period that typically indicates a material defect. The buyer does not have to refute all other explanations.
Especially in vehicles, symptoms can have different technical backgrounds. If consumers were required to prove the exact cause and exclude alternatives, the protective function of § 477 BGB would often be undermined.
What rights do buyers have in case of material defects?
If there is a material defect, depending on the individual case and legal requirements, particularly the following warranty rights are possible (§§ 437 ff. BGB):
- Supplementary performance (rectification or replacement)
- Withdrawal from the contract or reduction of the purchase price
- Compensation for damages or compensation for futile expenditures
Note: In many cases, the seller must first be given the opportunity for subsequent performance; withdrawal and damages instead of performance often require additional conditions (e.g. setting a deadline). In special scenarios (e.g. impossibility, unreasonableness), this may differ.
Practical significance: Enforcement becomes easier
The decisions of the BGH have significant impacts on practice: In the future, buyers – especially with vehicles – will less frequently need to prove through technical reports that the cause of a defect was present at delivery. What is crucial is usually that within a year after delivery, a defect appears that may indicate a material defect. This makes warranty claims in consumer goods purchases more frequently enforceable.
Important limits of the reversal of the burden of proof
- Only in consumer goods purchases: Consumer ↔ Business.
- One-year period: The presumption applies if the defect appears within a year of delivery.
- Presumption is rebuttable: The seller can explain and prove that the cause was set only after delivery (e.g. due to misuse, accident, external influences).
- Warranty ≠ Guarantee: Legal warranty exists independently of a voluntary guarantee; guarantee conditions may contain additional requirements.
Conclusion
With the judgments VIII ZR 73/24 and VIII ZR 257/23 the BGH strengthens consumer rights with defects that appear shortly after purchase. The reversal of the burden of proof according to § 477 BGB should not be undermined by requiring buyers to prove the specific technical cause or exclude all conceivable alternative causes. For consumers, this means that warranty claims can often be enforced with less evidential effort in disputes – especially when buying new and used vehicles.
Note on presentation: This article serves general informational purposes and does not replace individual case examination.
