The Regional Court of Wuppertal ruled in the course of an court ruled that the manufacturer of the Thermomix appliance was not Thermomix appliance is not obliged to inform the public about an upcoming model change.
What were the parties fighting about?
The plaintiff acquired a Thermomix TM5 from the defendant (manufacturer) on 16 January 2019 in the context of a sales event of a sales representative. On 08.03.2019, the manufacturer publicly announced the successor model TM 6. This has more functions than the predecessor model.
Obligation to indicate upcoming model change?
The plaintiff expressed the opinion to the manufacturer that he should have informed her about the timely release of the successor model. about the timely release of the successor model. The new functions of the successor model would have been of great would have been of great importance to the plaintiff. If she had known that the successor model would appear a few weeks later, she would not have chosen the previous model. she would not have chosen the previous model. The manufacturer expressed the opinion that there was no obligation to provide information does not exist. A duty to inform would have existed at most if a model change had already been made.
The district court of Wuppertal dismissed the action. At The Wuppertal District Court essentially justified its decision by stating, that there was no obligation to point out that a successor model would be launched later of a successor model as long as the product sold was still being produced and product was still in production and in the product range.
How did the Wuppertal Regional Court justify its decision?
The Regional Court of Wuppertal decided that the manufacturer cannot be reproached for culpably failing to provide information. culpable failure to inform. For this reason, the plaintiff was not entitled to a claim for rescission of the contract. claim for rescission of the contractual relationship.
First of all, the Regional Court of Wuppertal emphasised that duty of disclosure can arise from law, contract or previous action. can arise. The facts of the case did not give any indication of this. Prior action could have been assumed, for if, for example, the plaintiff had asked the sales representative about an imminent about an imminent change of model and had denied this truthfully. denied this.
Otherwise, the customer may demand the disclosure of those characteristics of a good or service which, in the opinion of the public, may public may influence the decision to buy. However, the interests of the advertiser interests of the advertiser or the seller must be taken into account. Under this approach, there was no duty of disclosure in the present case.
In the present case, the seller himself did not the appliance itself as a discontinued model. The new appliance was also not yet not yet included in the product range. It was not advertised at the time of the purchase of the model in question. the model in question. Incidentally, the manufacturer has a justified interest in selling goods from the existing range. A obligation of disclosure would considerably reduce the chances of these sales. considerably.
What do you have to do as a customer?
The decision of the Regional Court of Wuppertal is of an individual case, but it consistently follows the jurisprudence of the highest case law on the prerequisites for a duty of disclosure. continued. At the same time, it also shows the interested customer a solution:
Questions must always be answered truthfully. Therefore, the same applies to any successor models: Ask the seller and get their answer in writing or by e-mail. The answer alone will not win you a lawsuit, but it will make it easier for you to argue your case.
Judgment LG Wuppertal of 09.01.2020, Ref. 9 S 179/19
Previous instance: AG Wuppertal, judgment of 19.09.2019, ref. no. 32 C 159/19
GoldbergUllrich Lawyers 2020
Specialist lawyer for information technology law