You can meet a variety of needs with a loan, from a vacation trip, to a new car, to your own property. Maximum Mustermann, street / number, zip code / city address location, date: your lender. Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby exercise my right of withdrawal and terminate the contract concluded with you on time. I am entitled to resign, even if some time has passed since the conclusion of the contract. I have not complied with my due two-week withdrawal period according to BGB, because I did not inform myself correctly in the prescribed manner.
Lifting the loan
the right of withdrawal is obvious! The revocation declaration was only issued more than 3 years after payment of an early repayment. The debtor had concluded a term loan. The revocation is done. The Court points out that the revocation should be final. In the following period applies: The debtor gets his rate including interest in a sum of five percent above the base rate, the house bank, the loan including market interest.
After the revocation, the plaintiff only has to reimburse the net loan amount. “If you have not been informed of your right of revocation on the day of conclusion of the contract, the revocation period will run for one month.” 3. With the handing over of the copy of the contract document and this revocation instruction to the borrower, the time expires.
“The revocation period runs one day after you have been notified of a copy of this instruction and the contract document, the written contract application or a copy of the contract document or the contract application.” Thus, the defendant at the end of the first line, after the revocation within two weeks, a footnote “²” has been added, which is to lead to the following statement “Please check the deadline in the specific case”.
Thus, the defendant not only worked on the design on his own, but – even if this is not essential – added a confusing supplement. “The revocation instructions contained in the order document are – what the plaintiff ultimately no longer in doubt – with regard to the beginning of the period according to the settled case law of the Federal Court inadequate (see only Federal Court judgments of 1. 3. 2012 – 3. 2.83 / 11 -, 1. 12. 2010 – 82/10 and 9. 12. 2009 – 219/08 -).
It contained the note that the opposition period “begins at the earliest with the receipt of this instruction”. Such notification does not inform the consumer clearly about the beginning of the opposition period. “In the heading” Cancellation Policy “, an unspecified surcharge (” to1 loan account no. 8251 285 322 in the amount of 46,000.00 “or” to1 loan account no. 8251 285 330 in the amount must be reserved.
In addition, there are other differences in content in the chapter “Right of withdrawal”. The instruction used by the applicant in paragraph 1 of that section therefore contains a footnote reference not included in the model statement, which is not important but confusing (“2 Please check deadline in individual case”), an addition in parenthesis (“Name, Company and address of the creditworthy credit institution, if necessary fax number “).
If the consumer receives a resignation confirmation, he also gets an Internet address “), for which the same applies, and finally, the sub-heading provided in the sample instructions is missing.In the second part of the paragraph” Financed Transactions “the accused – unlike in the case of today known given in the judgment of the Senate in Case 13 U 217/11 – the model statements for the presentation of the transaction in question are accepted, provided that there is also a precondition that BayernLB will use the cooperation of the counterparty in the preparation of “or” the credit agreement.
However, here too there are at least formal differences from the model in that the specific instructions for financed real estate transactions are attached to the second paragraph mentioned above and do not replace them as specified in the Model Regulation. In addition, in this judgment, the defendant has made language changes using the term “we” rather than “lenders”.
Thus, there is no “complete agreement in every respect” between the defendant’s instruction and the sample. Because, according to the case-law of the Federal Court of Justice already mentioned, it is decisive whether the wording of the model instruction developed by the client was obviously subjected to a separate content-related processing in the preparation of the additional instruction. if the entrepreneur intervenes in the model text available to him, he can not invoke a protective effect connected with the unchanged acceptance of the model instructions. n.
This also applies irrespective of the actual extent of the change made by him, especially considering the diversity of possible individual design changes, no generalizable concrete limitation can be drawn, the observance of which would have a protective effect and from the time when it should disappear (BGH , Urt. V. 28.06.2011, loc. Cit., Para. 39).
“Due to this clear BGH decision, the Federal Council can not comply with the opinion of the Higher Regional Court in its decision of 25 June 2012 (4 E 262/11, G 398 ff.), According to which a specific deviation of the instruction from the sample instruction does not meet the protection objective Contrary to the opinion of the higher regional court of Frankfurt (judgment of 22.06.2009 – 9 E 111/08, quoted after Jura, Abs. 11) the question is, whether the error works at the expense of the consumer, eg if he makes it harder for the consumer understandable, not to answer (eg also eg OLG Munich, Urt. v.).
“The statement that the deadlines begin” at the earliest with the receipt of this instruction “does not meet the legal requirements of 355 (2) GTC. From the use of the term” at the earliest “the consumer can deduce that the start of the period still depends on further conditions, but it remains unclear what the conditions look like (Federal Court of Justice, judgments of 09. 12. 2009 – UR 219/08 BJW 2010, 989; BGH, judgments of 01. 12. 2010 – UR 82/10 – UR 82/10 – WM BGH, Judgments of 02.02.2011 – UR 103/10 – BJ 2011, 474).
The defendants can not rely on § 14 para. 1, 3 BGB-InfoV and the version in appendix 2 of the VO in the version valid until 31/03/2008 (16 BGB-InfoV), since they do not use a form opposite the plaintiffs have the pattern of the earlier version of the VII.
a. Case 9/12/2009 – Ref. 219/08; Case of 12. 4. 2007 – Ref. 12 para. 122/06 – HGHZ 172, 58; Case of 2. 2. 2. 2011 – Ref. 103/10 -, Az. Cit.
There is a dispute between the parties as to whether a statement of contradiction still complies with the model in Annex 2 of the BGB-InfoV if the user only linguistically adapts his instruction, especially the greeting of the “contracting parties” named in the instruction. In its judgment of 09. 12. 2009 – 18 sec. 2 no. 3 no. 219/08 the BGH did not explicitly request that the text of the instruction must agree.
In his negative opinion, he does not contradict the opinion of the Higher Regional Court (“Oberlandesgericht München”, decision of 26. 06. 2008 – 29 E 2250/08 -, juris), which demands a verbatim approval. Instead, the BGH points out that the Federal Circuit Court ruled – rightly – that the instructions in question did not fully comply with the model in Annex 2.
Incidentally, the current cancellation policy of Sparkassenverlag editorially not the then applicable model instruction in Annex 2 of the BGB-InfoV. In the model statements, the user was required to distinguish between credit agreements for real estate financing and other items in the declaration of the “economic entity” under the heading “Financed Transactions” in p.
For property financing, paragraph 2 of the instruction is to be supplemented by the following wording: “On the other hand, the restitutor has used the instruction applicable in terms of content as paragraph 3 in accordance with paragraph 2 to be prepared and also revised paragraph 3 in editorial terms completely in accordance with the sample instruction.
“The Trier regional court decided the bank to resign after the applicant had canceled his loan agreement. A request for revocation of the bank in the version of 07.07.2008 was approved by the LG MÃ?
Consumer loans or subordinated loans
Footnotes and additions cause mistakes in the cancellation policy. Supplements that are not included in the sample instructions can irritate the consumer. For example, the heading “Cancellation policy” already contains a footnote stating that this does not apply to distance selling. Furthermore, the notice of revocation contains a reference to “financed transactions”.
Not all real estate loans went out on July 21, 2009 – consumer loans or so-called consumer loans or subordinated loans can also, according to Mr. citizen Dr. med. med. Ralf, special lawyer for banks and financial market law, continue to be terminated, even if long contract periods have already occurred. Citizens: “Banks like the trust bank, the German Telekom, the German Telekom, the German Telekom, the German Telekom or the various autobanks have sometimes raised very good interest rates on consumer credit, so that the revocation can lead to a lucrative repayment amount, especially since the is repaid with the loan agreement related debt insurance.
“For example, the opinion of the Higher Regional Court of Hamm is still clear:” Even expired orders can be revoked. With the normal chain orders, it is quite sufficient if only the first is callable.