Anyone who orders tickets for an event by phone or email must also pay for them; there is no right of cancellation.
The Munich Local Court had to decide the following case:â?¨In December 2004, the later defendant ordered four tickets for an event from the plaintiff, a ticket centre, by telephone at a price of 626 euros and confirmed this order by e-mail.
Two weeks later, however, she no longer wanted the cards. The plaintiff then demanded the purchase price and filed a lawsuit before the Munich District Court. The defendant also refused to pay the purchase price in the court proceedings. The defendant argued that it had ordered the tickets by telephone and email. This was a distance contract pursuant to § 312 b of the German Civil Code (BGB), in which consumers had a right of withdrawal pursuant to § 312 d of the BGB. She had exercised this right.
However, the competent judge found in favour of the plaintiff and correctly ordered the defendant to pay for the tickets:
The District Court correctly stated that it was true that the contract for the purchase of the cards had not been concluded in person, but by telephone and email, and that it was therefore a distance contract.
According to § 312 b BGB, distance contracts are contracts concluded between a business within the meaning of § 14 BGB and a consumer within the meaning of § 13 BGB using exclusively means of distance communication (e.g. telephone, email, telecopies, letters, catalogues, broadcasting, tele- and media services). In these contract conclusions, the consumer is considered to be in particular need of protection, since the contractual partner and the product he or she is buying are "invisible", i.e. not physically facing the buyer.
Therefore, the BGB also grants the consumer a right of withdrawal in principle. However, the provisions on distance contracts do not apply to every contract concluded exclusively by means of distance communication.
If the seller provides services in the field of leisure activities, such as in this case the delivery of tickets for a specific event, the provisions on distance contracts pursuant to § 312 b (3) no. 6 BGB do not apply. In the opinion of the AG Munich, it is also not necessary for the seller to provide the service, in this case the event in the mirror tent itself. The procurement of tickets for this event also fell under the exception.
Therefore, the buyer had no right of withdrawal and was obliged to pay.
The judgement is final. The Munich Regional Court I dismissed the appeal. The appeal filed with the Federal Supreme Court was also unsuccessful.
Judgement of the AG Munich of 2.12.2005, AZ 182 C 26144/05
Source: Press release of the AG Munich of 11.9.2007
Attorney at Law Michael Ullrich, LL.M. (Information Law)
© Goldberg Attorneys at Law 2007
