Starting Point: Assumption Effect in Consumer Goods Purchases
In consumer goods purchases – that is, the sale of a movable item by a business to a consumer – the legal presumption rule regarding defects holds central significance. If a defect appears within the relevant period after handover, it is generally presumed that the item was already defective at the point of risk transfer. The legal consequence is that the claimant buyer does not always have to fully prove that the cause of the defect existed at the time of handover.
Decisions of the Federal Court of Justice: Scope of the Shift in Burden of Proof
The Federal Court of Justice has addressed in two cases (VIII ZR 73/24 and VIII ZR 257/22) the conditions under which the presumption effect in favor of consumers applies – especially when multiple causes for the complained malfunction or defect are possible.
VIII ZR 73/24: Presumption Even with Multiple Conceivable Causes
According to the highest court rulings, it is not necessary for the application of the presumption rule for the buyer to clearly trace the specific technical cause of the defect back to a condition present at the time of handover. What is essential is that a defective condition manifests within the relevant period. The fact that additional causes might be possible – such as those that could have arisen after handover – does not automatically nullify the presumption.
This clarifies that the assumption effect is not excluded merely because different sources of error are conceivable. Instead, the burden of proof shifts to the seller if they wish to disturb or refute the presumption.
VIII ZR 257/22: Requirements for Rebutting the Presumption
In the additional proceedings, the Federal Court of Justice outlined the requirements for successfully rebutting the presumption more clearly. The seller can challenge the presumption; however, not every abstract possibility of a subsequent causation suffices. What is required is a substantiated argument that allows the conclusion to be drawn that the defect likely arose only after the risk transfer or is based on circumstances not attributable to the seller’s responsibility.
The rulings underline that merely pointing to alternative events is not enough to eliminate the presumption effect. The decisive factor is the specific circumstances of the individual case and a credible explanation why the defect could not have been present at handover.
Relevant Defect Concept: Occurrence of a Defective Condition
The decisions highlight the finding that a defective condition appears within the relevant period. The presumption rule links the defect to its occurrence and not to the requirement that the buyer must fully resolve the technical cause of the defect. For legal assessment, it is decisive whether there is a defect in the legal sense and whether it manifests in temporal connection with the handover.
Classification: Burden of Proof, Obligation to Explain, and Practical Relevance
The case law of the Federal Court of Justice clarifies the distinction between what the buyer side must present within the scope of its explanation and what the seller side must demonstrate to challenge the presumption. In scenarios with multiple possible causes, the presumption rule prevents consumers from typically being unable to enforce their warranty rights solely due to the lack of technical clarification options. At the same time, the seller side retains the opportunity to counter the presumption with facts specific to the individual case.
Conclusion: Contractual Disputes in the Context of Warranty and Burden of Proof
The two decisions illustrate that questions of the distribution of the burden of proof in purchase law regularly depend on the specific contractual arrangement, the time of handover, the documentation, and the party presentations. Those who wish to have legal issues classified in connection with warranty rights, rescission, or the delineation of areas of responsibility can find additional information on Legal Advice in Contract Law at MTR Legal Attorneys.
