”
Classification of the facts
\n\n
When purchasing used items, different expectations regularly collide: buyers often focus on a condition that is as close to new as possible, whereas sellers—especially in the case of items used over a longer period—assume that traces of use must be accepted. The Palatinate Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Zweibrücken addressed this delineation in its decision of 25 April 2025 (case no. 6 U 19/20). The key question was whether certain features of the “used” item constitute a material defect or are merely attributable to ordinary wear and tear. Source: urteile.news, article “Ordinary wear and tear on a ‘used’ item is not a defect (25.04.2025)”.
\n
Legal standard in sales law
\n
Contractually agreed quality and typical expectation
\n\n
Whether a purchased item is defective is, in principle, determined by the agreed quality. If there is no specific agreement, the question is whether the item is suitable for ordinary use and has a quality that is customary for items of the same kind and that the buyer may expect. In the case of used goods, the standard is shaped by the prior use.
\n
Significance of age, mileage, and prior use
\n\n
For used items, it must be taken into account that age, mileage, and wear and tear influence the expectations. Insofar as appearances present themselves as a typical consequence of use and remain within what is regularly encountered with comparable used items, this generally does not constitute a material defect.
\n
Key statements of the decision of the OLG Zweibrücken
\n
Ordinary wear and tear as a criterion of delineation
\n\n
The OLG Zweibrücken emphasized that “ordinary wear and tear” on a used purchased item cannot, without further ado, be classified as a defect. Signs of use and age- or use-related changes must therefore generally be accepted by the buyer insofar as they correspond to the typical condition of a comparable used item.
\n
No equation of signs of use with a defect
\n\n
The decision makes clear that not every deviation from an ideal-typical or as-new condition gives rise to defectiveness. Rather, a defect requires that the condition of the item falls short of what may be expected of a used item under the agreement or under an objective standard.
\n
Significance for the contractual allocation of risk
\n
Relevance of specific statements of quality
\n\n
For the legal assessment, it is of weight whether, in the individual case, specific assurances or descriptions define the condition of the item. The more precisely quality characteristics are recorded in the contract or in pre-contractual communication, the more clearly it can be determined whether a deviation is legally significant or remains to be classified as a trace of use.
\n
Delineation from atypical, substantial deviations
\n\n
At the same time, the decision confirms that scenarios remain conceivable in which signs of wear and tear can no longer be regarded as “ordinary.” The legal classification depends on the circumstances of the individual case, in particular on the overall condition, the expected service life, and the comparison with items of the same type and use.
\n
Concluding remark
\n\n
The decision of the OLG Zweibrücken underscores that the assessment of used purchased items requires a careful weighing between the agreed quality and typical prior use. Anyone who, in this context, has questions requiring clarification regarding the drafting, interpretation, or handling of purchase and contractual relationships can find information on legal advice in contract law at MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte.
“
