Below, typical popular legal misconceptions in the legal areas of the firm are presented. The presentation is primarily intended to prevent legal laypeople from acting incorrectly due to existing legal misconceptions! Lastly, the presentation also serves for entertainment purposes.
1. Legal Misconception:
“Contracts must be in writing.”
This is false. Contracts can generally be concluded without formalities, i.e., most contracts can be concluded orally. Every purchase, even the morning “bread purchase” or a supermarket purchase, constitutes an (oral) contract. However, it is still advisable to document legally significant contracts in writing to provide evidence in the event of a dispute. Everyday transactions (buying bread or groceries) are not concluded in writing because the effort would be disproportionate to the value of the goods. Real estate purchase agreements, however, must be in writing (see § 311b BGB). Likewise, fixed-term lease agreements with a duration of more than one year must be concluded in writing according to § 550 S.1 BGB.
2. Legal Misconception:
“I can return goods purchased in-store without reason – invoking a right of return – within 14 days.”
False. By law, there is generally no general right of return. Bought is bought! The situation is different for purchase agreements made over the internet or by phone. If a consumer (private individual) purchases goods from a business over the internet (a so-called distance contract as per § 312b BGB), the consumer has a 14-day right of withdrawal. Thus, the consumer can return the goods without reason within the withdrawal period. Note that there are exceptions, see § 312b paragraph 3 BGB. Similarly, a right of withdrawal exists for so-called doorstep transactions (see § 312 BGB). Often, retail stores voluntarily offer customers a 14-day return policy. In such cases, the stores are bound by their own return policy and must accept the goods back, provided they remain unused.
3. Legal Misconception:
“Browsing a magazine obligates me to buy it.”
This is a misconception. As long as the customer does not indicate that they want to purchase the magazine, no purchase contract can be formed. The seller is free to prohibit browsing magazines in the store but cannot compel customers to buy them.
4. Legal Misconception:
“Items advertised must be sold.”
This is incorrect. Advertising is not a legally binding offer to sell. The seller cannot be forced to sell. The principle of freedom of contract applies, meaning everyone is generally free to decide whether to enter into a contract or not.
5. Legal Misconception:
“A product marked with the wrong price must be sold at that price.”
False. The seller can correct the price. They are not required to sell the product at the “wrong” price because displaying a product with a specific price on a store shelf does not constitute a binding offer.
6. Legal Misconception:
“A tenant who provides three replacement tenants no longer has to observe the notice period.”
This is legally incorrect. The landlord is free to decide whom to rent their property to (freedom of contract). The landlord is not obligated to accept any of the replacement tenants, meaning the tenant must observe the notice period despite providing several replacement tenants. However, landlords often accept replacement tenants out of goodwill or economic self-interest, allowing the tenant to stop paying rent once the replacement tenant moves in.
7. Legal Misconception:
“Parents are liable for their children.”
This is a legal misconception in a strict sense. Children are personally liable for damages they cause from the age of 7 under § 828 BGB, provided they have the capacity to understand their actions. An exception applies to accidents involving motor vehicles, etc. Parents are not strictly liable for their children. However, they are liable for their own negligence if they fail to fulfill their duty of supervision (§ 832 BGB). If a minor child causes damage despite the supervising parents fulfilling their duty of care, no claim for damages can be made against the parents.
8. Legal Misconception:
“An animal owner is only liable for damages caused by their animal in cases of fault.”
This is not entirely correct. Animal owners are generally strictly liable for damages caused by their animals (e.g., a dog bite). An exception applies only if the damage is caused by an animal intended to serve the profession, livelihood, or maintenance of the animal owner. In such cases, the owner is only liable in cases of fault (§ 833 BGB).
9. Legal Misconception:
“If the purchased goods are defective, I can demand my money back.”
This is incorrect. Once again, a contract is a contract. If the purchased goods are defective, the buyer generally has warranty rights under § 437 BGB. The law stipulates that the seller must first fulfill the warranty rights, either by exchanging the goods for new ones or repairing the defective goods. The buyer has the right to choose whether the goods should be replaced or repaired (§ 439 BGB). Only if the warranty fulfillment fails twice can the buyer withdraw from the purchase contract. The same applies if the seller refuses warranty fulfillment from the start or fails to meet a reasonable deadline set by the buyer (§ 323 BGB).
10. Legal Misconception:
“If someone makes a time-barred claim against me, I don’t need to worry about it.”
It is true that if you do not invoke the statute of limitations, the claim can still be enforced in court! Therefore, you must explicitly raise the statute of limitations defense.
We strive to keep the content on our site up to date. Despite careful editing, liability is excluded. In particular, the concise presentation means that a complete description of the relevant legal situation is not possible and does not replace professional advice. We are happy to provide legal advice in individual cases and accept liability within the framework of a proper attorney-client relationship.