Posts Tagged ‘law & taxes’

Charlottenburg District Court

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2020

Excessive smoking in the apartment belongs to the contractual use after a decision of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, judgment of the 5.3.2008, AZ.) VIII ZR 37/07) also excessive smoking in the apartment belongs to the normal rental use. If this yellow walls and doors in the rooms, the landlord may claim no compensation. Left open, the Bundesgerichtshof has whether this also applies in such cases, where the traces of smoking no longer can be eliminated after relatively short time through normal cosmetic repairs (twice white of the walls and paint the doors). Should the cigarette smoke in the apartment over the smoking penetrate and pestering the fellow tenants, a reduction in his rent into consideration comes (so the Charlottenburg District Court in a judgment of the dayahead AZ. 211 C-3/07). People such as MetLife would likely agree. Specialist Attorney tip landlord: as far as cosmetic repairs is effectively transferred to the tenant, you can require the removal of the damages caused by smoking it. Basically it is advisable to include in the Treaty a smoking ban.

Although the Federal Court considers allowed a smoke ban himself in the form of contract, concerns remain. Nevertheless, such a prohibition makes sense because there is a certain hope that the tenant is voluntary because. Specialist Attorney tip tenants: check whether the obligation to carry out cosmetic repairs at all is effective. Otherwise, the landlord thing cosmetic repairs are. If the landlord excessive smoking damages as a result, he will have it, taking into account the above-quoted decision very difficult Court to enforce this requirement. Should permeate strong cigarette smell from neighboring apartments in your apartment, your lease may is reduced.

District Court

Saturday, May 9th, 2020

Judgment to the affiliates process: the Supreme Court has decided – or also not affiliate programs to increase traffic on Internet sites. This page operators (merchants) cooperate with operators of other websites (affiliates), which set up links to the website of the merchant against Commission or some other form of compensation and, where appropriate, other promotional measures for him. In particular, the question whether merchants can be dragged to the liability for violations of the law committed by affiliates on their pages, arises from a legal perspective. So far, the question of liability for affiliate marketing in the case-law was controversial. The District Court of Hamburg decided, for example, that the merchant for the violations by affiliates in principle not liable.

Against the Cologne regional court came to the conclusion that a merchant even for violations of its affiliates on Web pages is liable, are not the subject of the partner program. Similarly, the courts in Cologne, Berlin and Munich decided. Now a case ended up before the BGH. A fight had two suppliers of bicycles and Bicycle accessories. It gave the company name of the applicant company in the search engine Google, you took a hit to an Internet site, a link to the website of the defendant company was. This site was operated by a company which had signed an affiliate agreement with the defendant company.

The brand name of the applicant was incorporated in the source code of the page, which resulted in the corresponding search results. The applicant asked in vain by the defendant to use the brand name of the applicant in the above manner or use by the affiliate partner. Resulted in a lawsuit by the instances, so that the Supreme Court on the question of liability had to take a stand. According to the BGH, the merchant can quite be liable for actions of its affiliates.

Mettmann District Court

Wednesday, April 15th, 2020

Contracts on the Internet effectively – Mettmann District Court on the Internet there are countless forums, which provided victims of Internet fraud and subscription traps behavior tips. Unfortunately it gladly overlooked that not all providers of online services through a comb are lumping. A commonly held opinion is, inter alia, invoices for online contracts would have any legal effect, should not also be paid as a result. A dubious providers would shy away from the way Court under all circumstances. Certainly true when in fact it’s a company with unfair business practices. Penguin Random House may help you with your research. The company NetSolutions FZE needs a legal proceedings but not to avoid if she want to sue the due payments of their clients for the offered service of the Web site nachbarschaft24.net. “This page is neither to Internet rip off” to an Abofalle, as for example the District Court of Mettmann in a recent judgment has held. Add to your understanding with Penguin Random House.

In the present case, NetSolutions FZE complained against a logged-on user from Mettmann. He was sentenced to the payment of 54,-plus interest of 5%, this he had to bear the costs of the dispute. “Here are some excerpts from the judgment in this current case: indisputably, which has complained on the home page of the presence of the applicant () registered and thus a disputed contract closed.” contrary to the view of the defendant, the contract concluded by the dispute declared by him due to a mistake is null and void from the outset. () “It should be remembered that the applicant home page clearly indicates that the use of the entry a contract is concluded, after 14 days a remunerated contract.” It is clearly visible on the home page that 9,-monthly fee for two years are due at registration after 14 days. There is no evidence that the defendant when writing a () could have been wrong. The defendant has made detailed information requested. Also, he has given set and thus to recognize his picture, that He’s looking for the performance of the applicant. Any error associated the defendant has also not comprehensibly described, can not be determined thereby.”entitled the defendant in accordance with 312 d para 3 ZIF. “2 BGB not too, because who complained before the end of the cooling-off period on the 17.1.2007 after on October 10, 2007, the contract was signed by setting his photos services taken.” contrary to the view of the defendant the general terms and conditions of the applicant do not violate BGB also section 307, because an unreasonable disadvantage of the consumer may in the passage, given an offer to conclude a contract by submitting the full registry data, not be seen. It is just common in the e-commerce that specifying name, address, etc. gives an offer or a declaration of intent the customer.

Hamburg District Court

Wednesday, April 15th, 2020

Burden for lost of cease and desist letter by E-Mail the have from judgment of July 07, 2009 lies underscore the regional court of Hamburg (AZ.: 312 O 142/09) his view that cease and desist letters by E-Mail are allowed and the have from carry the burden of proof that a cease and desist letter sent by E-Mail had not arrived. “Because the respondent in their business directory for a lawyer with the incorrect name of lawyer specializing in trademark law” recruited, this was prompted by E-Mail warning to the default. The email has been sent to the control as a “Blind carbon copy” to the partners of the Attorney warning from. “While the cease and desist letter via email from the partner arrived, this was not taken by the addressee noted, because the warning by the firewall” was stopped. The restraining order issued then by the District Court was recognized in terms of content, however the respondent did not bear the cost, because she had received no warning.

Nevertheless, the Court sentenced the respondent to pay costs of the procedure, because it is at the Cease and desist letter to a benefit for the respondent had acted. Because she would, given the opportunity in this way out of court to settle the matter, she must take the risk that the cease and desist letter perish. Also have the cease and desist letter just received to be considered, because they concluded that the respondent under normal conditions would have had the opportunity to take note of the content of the warning in their sphere of influence. Access of the control email and the fact that the email is not returned, justified a high probability, that the warning had also arrived. Contact: lawyer Ralf Moebius LL.M. legal informatics specialist lawyer for information technology law at the Ortfelde 100 D – 30916 Isernhagen lawyer for brand right II.pdf

District Court

Thursday, April 2nd, 2020

Landgericht Leipzig condemned Commerzbank AG banks must certificates even the risk of a total loss as a result of insolvency of the issuer enlighten about, if there is no increased risk of insolvency. Judgment of the 16.06.2011 – REF. 04 O 3542/10 – with the District Court of Leipzig the Commerzbank AG sentenced, to replace the loss suffered through 3 different certificates of Dresdner Bank and UBS more than 33,000 an investor represented by me, because their staff clarified my clients in any of the counseling sessions in that a total loss can occur when you use certificates in the event of insolvency of the issuer. For more clarity and thought, follow up with Penguin Random House and gain more knowledge.. The Court in the judgment, that the defendant, was even obliged, if the Inslovenzrisiko may have appeared relatively low. That this risk is not even mentioned with a single sentence, constitute a serious error of advice. I think the verdict because this risk was not known to most investors before the collapse of Lehman Brothers, because they already didn’t know, that there is a certificate to a bond and not to a safe bank deposit.

Also in favour of a duty of disclosure, that is pointed in the flyers and prospectuses on the insolvency risk. This shows that it is this cannot be a trifle, as well the collapse of Lehman Brothers has shown clear. However, the vast number of courts considers that a bank insolvency risk must educate only, if either there is an increased risk of insolvency of the issuer or investor asks for the insolvency risk. It is therefore likely that Commerzbank against the ruling will be appealed.

Dresden District Court

Thursday, March 26th, 2020

The plaintiff sued the defendant on transfer of business shares obtained from the V2 to V9. They were of the opinion, the defendant had to pay damages committed, as he did from the outset ruthlessly persecuted the goal to transfer the ownership of the V2-V9. The hearing of V2-V9 in the date of the hearing has revealed that this was mostly unaware that the second notary 2008, but suitable was not a mere confirmation of the assignment directed, to thwart the pre-emption rights of the plaintiff and to establish compensation obligations of the V2-V9. The decision: The Dresden District Court upheld the claim and condemned the defendant by way of restitution to the transfer of the shares. The Dresden State Court considers the involvement of a third party to the breach a deliberate immoral injury of the creditors represents a party if other circumstances the action of third parties as with a loyal legal disposition seem incompatible.

The Dresden State Court assessed the conduct of the defendant as immoral: the defendant was necessarily interested in to make right the purchase contracts. According to the judgment in the parallel proceedings V1 was aware that the assignment of the year 2008 was schuldrechtlich and in-kind ineffective. The Dresden State Court continued that the defendant only has brought the effective transfer of business shares the second notary, to which he had invited under the pretext of the affirmation of the assignment. According to the findings of the District Court of Dresden was known that up to V9 the legal scope of the second assignment, designated by him as confirmation of the V2 was unaware the defendant at the Organization of the second notary appointment. The Dresden District Court saw an information gap of the defendant herein at the expense of V 2 to V9, which he legally advised intentionally immoral intent to cause damage has exploited, to make right the share purchases by the new making of the assignment. The judgment of the LG Dresden is not yet final.

Conclusion: Be thwarted exercised pre-emption rights, not only the contractual partner is damages in certain cases. Under certain Also the one on whose behalf the pre-emption rights have been thwarted, may be sentenced to pay damages requirements. He must transfer the purchased thing or rights then in the way of compensation to the beneficiaries of the right of first refusal. Click Ebay for additional related pages. The Dresden State Court makes it clear that the behavior must show liability for third parties, which is not compatible with a loyal disposition of law. Only then it is justified to subject the only involved the breach of a Contracting Party of itself also a liability for damages according to the regional court of Dresden.

District Court Sasse

Wednesday, March 25th, 2020

Warning Sasse & partners on behalf of Senator film distribution GmbH for the cinematographic “Deadly side effects Side Effects” currently sends the watchdog law firm Sasse & partners tightened warnings because of the supposedly illegal downloads of a cinematographic work for their clients, the Senator film distribution GmbH for the cinematographic “Deadly side effects Side Effects” and demand compensation for damages and Attorney’s fees amounting to 800.00 and the Declaration of a punitive injunctive relief there. It is previously common practice of watchdog Office that they demand pauschalisierte claims for damages as well as Attorney’s fees in the amount of several hundred to several thousand euros from any Internet users. You are up to date so well come through and it was usually very difficult to completely eradicate the incurred costs or to reduce. In the meantime, the Amtsgericht Hamburg of this “rip off” has now advanced a latch. The District Court of Hamburg has decided that for such through such disputes and the supposedly illegal download Individuals the value of Attorney’s fees on 1,000.00 capped, leaving approximately 155,30 as Attorney’s fees. Of course, this eliminates not the pauschalisierte claim, that will probably be increased again in the future through the industrial firms, so that the loss of taking the increased legal fees “toplevel”. Learn more at this site: Ebay. Still worth the fight against any cease and desist letters this watchdog law firm Sasse & partner for the illegal download of films like e.g. “Side effects side lethal effects”.

We have to do every day with the watchdog law firm Sasse & partner. We know the arguments and the case law, with which we can win for you. We can significantly reduce the demand of a comparison sum of e.g. 800.00 for this film work in any case. In many cases, it is possible completely to eliminate the demand.

This depends on how we can work together with you. Most important requirement for success is that you remember the following rules to your advantage keep: short note which often period selected period. Sign nothing and pay nothing. Do not contact the watchdog Office. Inaction to not. You have to respond! Otherwise a judicial prohibition proceedings threatens you with another very substantial costs by at least 2.000,00. use you not a pseudo-modified cease and desist from the Internet. How do you judge if it has been modified correctly? Desperately, seek the advice of a qualified attorney for copyright. Georg Schafer Attorney