”
Decision of the Regional Court (LG) Koblenz dated 11 April 2024: No telephone confirmation required
\n\n
The validity of a termination generally depends on the statutory and contractual formal requirements. As a rule, there is no additional obligation to confirm by telephone the receipt or submission of a termination notice. This is addressed in a decision of the Regional Court (Landgericht) Koblenz dated 11 April 2024 (case no. 11 O 12/23), reported by the platform urteile.news (source: https://urteile.news/LG-Koblenz_11-O-1223_Kuendigung-muss-nicht-telefonisch-bestaetigt-werden~N33892).
\n
Background to the dispute
\n
Contractual relationship and termination notice
\nIn the case decided, the issue was the ending of a contractual relationship by termination. The point in dispute was less whether a termination had been declared, but rather whether, in addition, a telephone confirmation could be required or whether the absence of such a confirmation should have an impact on the effectiveness of the termination.
\n
Conflict over additional communication requirements
\nAccording to the reported facts, the objection was raised that it had been necessary to additionally “confirm” the termination by telephone or to secure it once more in a phone call. The court therefore had to clarify whether such an additional requirement is legally supported.
\n
Key statements of the decision
\n
What matters is form and receipt – not a telephone double-check
\nAccording to the reporting, the Regional Court (LG) Koblenz made it clear that, for the effectiveness of a termination, compliance with the relevant formal requirements and the receipt of the declaration by the recipient are decisive. In principle, no obligation can be derived from this to additionally confirm a termination by telephone.
\n
No independent effectiveness requirement of a “phone call”
\nTo the extent that one party wished it to be understood that a telephone confirmation was a necessary prerequisite for ending the contractual relationship, the court, according to the publication, denied that there was a corresponding legal basis. An additional act of communication that is intended to accompany a formally effective termination does not, in and of itself, establish a requirement for effectiveness.
\n
Classification for companies and market participants
\n
Significance for standardized contract processes
\nThe decision highlights that, in practice, terminations are to be assessed against the objective criteria of form and receipt. Additional communication steps that are not anchored in law or contract cannot, according to the reported judicial assessment, simply be assumed to be mandatory.
\n
Relevance at the interfaces with sales and communication
\nIn business relationships, the ability to prove declarations often plays a significant role. Especially in constellations in which contract terminations are linked to sales processes or internal communication standards, the decision, according to the reporting, shows that questions of legal effectiveness must be separated from organizational expectations.
\n
Note on the procedural status and the source
\nThe above information is based on the reporting by urteile.news on the decision of the Regional Court (LG) Koblenz dated 11 April 2024 (case no. 11 O 12/23). The account is therefore provided on the basis of this source; no further assertions of fact are made. To the extent that the judgment may not be final, this must be taken into account in the legal assessment.
\n
Outlook: Competitive law points of contact in contract communication
\nDesigns around termination processes, confirmation requirements, and standardized communication can—depending on their specific form—also have points of contact with market conduct and thus with competition law, for example if communication requirements vis-à-vis customers influence a business decision. Anyone seeking a classification in this regard can find information at MTR Legal on legal advice in competition law.
“
