<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Maklerprovision Archive - R&amp;U</title>
	<atom:link href="https://ru.law/en/tag/maklerprovision/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://ru.law/en/tag/maklerprovision/</link>
	<description>Consumer lawyers</description>
	<lastbuilddate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 09:16:04 +0000</lastbuilddate>
	<language>en-GB</language>
	<sy:updateperiod>
	hourly	</sy:updateperiod>
	<sy:updatefrequency>
	1	</sy:updatefrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.5</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>BGH-Urteil Verstoß gegen den Halbteilungsgrundsatz bei Maklercourtage für Einfamilienhäuser</title>
		<link>https://ru.law/en/bgh-urteil-verstoss-gegen-den-halbteilungsgrundsatz-bei-maklercourtage-fuer-einfamilienhaeuser/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Marco Rogert]]></dc:creator>
		<pubdate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 09:16:04 +0000</pubdate>
				<category><![CDATA[Urteile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maklerprovision]]></category>
		<guid ispermalink="false">https://ru.law/?p=88355</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The Federal Court of Justice ruled that a broker&#039;s commission on a real estate purchase is invalid if the commission was not agreed upon by the buyer and seller in the same amount, as required by the principle of equal division in Section 656c of the German Civil Code (BGB).</p>
<p>Der Beitrag <a href="https://ru.law/en/bgh-urteil-verstoss-gegen-den-halbteilungsgrundsatz-bei-maklercourtage-fuer-einfamilienhaeuser/">BGH-Urteil Verstoß gegen den Halbteilungsgrundsatz bei Maklercourtage für Einfamilienhäuser</a> erschien zuerst auf <a href="https://ru.law/en">R&amp;U</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Judgment of 6 March 2025 – I ZR 32/24</strong></p>



<p>BGH ruling on brokerage law: Invalidity of a commission claim in the case of unequal brokerage fees</p>



<p>The First Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice, which is responsible for brokerage law, ruled in its judgment of 6 March 2025 (Az. I ZR 32/24) that a brokerage commission is ineffective if it was not agreed in the same amount by both the seller and the buyer - if the latter is acting as a consumer. This follows from the <strong>§ 656c para. 1 BGB</strong> principle of equal division.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-sachverhalt">facts</h2>



<p>A real estate agent had entered into a brokerage agreement with the buyers of a single-family home. The property, consisting of a residential building with an office extension and a garage, had previously been given to her by the seller&#039;s wife for brokerage. While a different commission arrangement was made for the seller, the buyers were to pay a higher brokerage commission.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-prozessverlauf">process</h2>



<p>The <strong>Düsseldorf Regional Court</strong> dismissed the broker&#039;s claim for payment of the commission. The <strong>Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf</strong> confirmed the decision, since the brokerage contract was against <strong>§ 656c BGB</strong> and was therefore void. With her appeal before the Federal Court of Justice, the broker continued to pursue her claim for payment - but without success.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-entscheidung-des-bundesgerichtshofs">decision of the Federal Court of Justice</h2>



<p>The Federal Court of Justice confirmed the invalidity of the commission agreement. Since the broker had not demanded an equal amount of commission from both parties to the purchase agreement, the contract violated <strong>§ 656c Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 BGB</strong> and was therefore in accordance with <strong>§ 656c Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 BGB</strong> void.</p>



<p>The court also clarified that the rules on the principle of equal division also apply if the broker is not commissioned directly by the seller, but by a third party - in this case the seller&#039;s wife. This serves to protect consumers, as buyers must not be disadvantaged by unequal commission agreements.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">significance of the decision</h2>



<p>With this ruling, the Federal Court of Justice strengthens the rights of consumers in real estate purchases and makes it clear that brokers cannot evade the obligation to distribute commissions equally by using circumvention structures.</p><p>Der Beitrag <a href="https://ru.law/en/bgh-urteil-verstoss-gegen-den-halbteilungsgrundsatz-bei-maklercourtage-fuer-einfamilienhaeuser/">BGH-Urteil Verstoß gegen den Halbteilungsgrundsatz bei Maklercourtage für Einfamilienhäuser</a> erschien zuerst auf <a href="https://ru.law/en">R&amp;U</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>