Landgericht Mönchengladbach schafft klare Verhältnisse

The District Court of Mönchengladbach has upheld the action against the Daimler Group and ordered it to withdraw a Mercedes-Benz V-Class 250d 4M (LG Mönchengladbach, judgment of 12.05.2021, Az. 6 O 78/19). This model is equipped with an engine with the designation OM651 and was recalled by the KBA.

The court made it clear that the Mercedes-Benz van sold in June 2018 for €69,900 was not free of material defects because it did not have the quality that is usual and to be expected for such purchases. In other words: The vehicle is defective and the buyer is therefore entitled to withdraw from the purchase contract - without setting a deadline for rectification!

Mercedes V-Class has an illegal switch-off device

In its judgment, the court followed the plaintiffs' arguments and found that various devices were implemented in the vehicle which, with regard to exhaust gas treatment, differentiated between a situation on the test bench and outside the test bench and only ensured exhaust gas purification in compliance with the legal limits on the test bench; the vehicle was therefore equipped with a switch-off device.

The reasonable average buyer expects that the vehicle in question is either legally registered or eligible for registration and assumes that the vehicle meets the technical and legal requirements for registration. Requirements that the V-Class does not meet.

Deadline for rectification not required

A deadline for rectification or removal of the defect did not have to be set here, as the fraudulent deception of the buyer - but also of the authority responsible for registering the vehicle - had destroyed the relationship of trust between the buyer and seller to such an extent that such a deadline was unnecessary. For the court, it was irrelevant whether the defect could be remedied by installing the software update. The fact that a defect can be remedied retrospectively does not change the fact that the purchased item had this defect when the risk was transferred and that the buyer was fraudulently deceived about it. Otherwise, the party obliged to rectify the defect, who has already committed a deception towards the authority, could claim that he is being monitored by the same authority that has already been deceived. In view of this, it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to agree to a rectification again.

The court calculated here for the 41,349 km driven just under € 11,800 as compensation for use on the purchase price. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an amount of around € 57,200.