Claim for damages for car buyers in the case of delayed delivery of an electric vehicle and lost environmental bonus
On February 19, 2024 (Case No. 223 C 15954/23), the Munich District Court issued a decision of considerable practical relevance regarding the purchase of electric vehicles and the use of government subsidy programs. At the core was the question of whether a buyer of an electric car is entitled to claim damages against the selling dealership if an initially promised environmental bonus could not be obtained in full due to delayed vehicle delivery.
Background of the legal dispute
Contract conclusion and subsidies
In May 2022, a consumer entered into a purchase agreement with a car dealer for a new, fully electric vehicle. At the time of conclusion, the then-current version of the so-called environmental bonus subsidy applied, which—with certain deadlines and conditions met—would cover a substantial portion of the purchase price as a state and manufacturer contribution.
Delayed vehicle delivery and reduction of the environmental bonus
However, after the contract was signed, the delivery of the vehicle was significantly delayed. As a result, registration did not occur until after the conditions for the environmental bonus had changed and the eligible amount had been reduced. The buyer therefore received only a reduced amount from the relevant authority, while remaining obligated to pay the full purchase price.
Assertion of claims
The buyer demanded that the seller compensate for the difference between the originally projected and the actual environmental bonus paid. The dealership argued that this did not constitute compensable damage. The customer subsequently filed a lawsuit before the Munich District Court.
Legal assessment and the court’s considerations
Requirements for a claim for damages
The Munich District Court clarified that a vehicle seller is generally obligated to deliver the car within the agreed delivery period. If this period is not observed, the seller falls into default, provided the buyer has set a reasonable grace period and the seller has still not delivered within this period.
Compensability of the reduced environmental bonus
The court examined whether the loss of part of the environmental bonus caused by delayed registration can be considered damage attributable to the seller. Since the entitlement to the subsidy was tied to specific time and registration deadlines, and compliance with these deadlines is typically a contractual obligation of the dealer, an adequate causal link was affirmed. The buyer incurred a direct financial loss due to the delay in delivery, exactly equal to the missed bonus.
Attribution and area of responsibility of the seller
The judges emphasized that the application process for the environmental bonus does not itself constitute a separate legal defect or risk for the buyer if full payment of the bonus would have been secured by timely delivery. The delay in handing over the vehicle was attributed to the seller—after compliance with the contractual and statutory grace periods. Neither the unpredictability of the subsidy program’s conditions nor later changes in subsidy law alter this attribution, as long as the reduction of the subsidy would not have occurred with proper fulfillment of the contract.
Amount of claim and economic assessment
The court confirmed the buyer’s claim to compensation for the difference between the originally promised and the actually paid environmental bonus. This damage is not hypothetical, but a real financial loss for which the seller is liable under the general rules.
Significance for future buyers and businesses
This judgment is groundbreaking for contractual relationships between buyers of electric vehicles and car dealers concerning the calculation of state subsidy programs. It underscores the importance of binding delivery deadlines and the obligation to fulfill the purchase contract on time, especially when economic circumstances (such as the amount of state grants) are linked to concrete timelines.
Legal challenges in subsidy programs and contract processing
The case illustrates that government premiums and subsidy instruments pose risks for both buyers and sellers—especially when their grant depends on registration dates or other deadlines. Any deviation from the contractually agreed delivery time can lead to significant financial consequences, which may be directly imposed on the seller. In addition to purely legal questions concerning purchase law, considerations of liability and the careful documentation and consideration of any grace periods and contract changes come to the fore.
At the same time, the judgment clarifies that changes in subsidy conditions during the process do not necessarily result in a complete shifting of risk to the buyer. Rather, under certain circumstances, the performance risk remains with the seller.
Conclusion
The decision of the Munich District Court highlights the central role of delivery obligations and government funding conditions in the context of purchasing environmentally friendly vehicles. All parties involved are therefore advised to pay particular attention to the structuring of delivery deadlines, documentation of delays, and timely assertion of any potential claims.
MTR Legal Rechtsanwalt is happy to assist you with further legal questions regarding contractual relationships, liability for delayed delivery, and the integration of government subsidy programs.
Quelle: AG München, Urteil vom 19.02.2024, Az. 223 C 15954/23; urteile.news
