Abstract
revocation instruction
Sufficient.
Abstract
revocation instruction
Sufficient.
from
Does a withdrawal policy have to tell the buyer specifically whether they may withdraw – or is a reference to the legal requirements sufficient?
What is it all about?
The Federal Court of Justice has clarified this: A revocation instruction for distance contracts does not have to individually check and state whether the specific buyer may withdraw. It is sufficient if the instruction states the legal requirements – for example, “If you are a consumer and have concluded this contract exclusively using means of distance communication, you have the law of withdrawal”. This applies even if the seller does not provide any information on the costs of returning the goods. Buyers must assess for themselves whether they meet the requirements. The right of withdrawal therefore expires regularly after 14 days – not after the maximum period of 12 months and 14 days.
The case
A consumer purchased a new vehicle for 46,520 euros via distance selling on 25.02.2022. The vehicle was handed over on 06.12.2022. On 21.05.2023 – more than five months after receipt – he declared his withdrawal and demanded repayment of the purchase price.
The revocation instruction used began with the words:
If you are a consumer and have concluded this contract exclusively by means of distance communication, you have the law to withdraw from this contract within fourteen days.
In addition, the instruction contained the information that the buyer had to bear the direct costs of the return shipment, without, however, providing specific information on the amount of these costs.
The lower courts
The Regional Court of Stuttgart dismissed the claim and found the withdrawal policy to be sufficient. However, the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court upheld the plaintiff’s appeal.
According to the Higher Regional Court, the revocation instruction was incorrect because it did not specifically inform the plaintiff whether a right of withdrawal existed in his case. The abstract wording merely provided the consumer with information about the requirements for a right of withdrawal, but he had to check for himself whether these were present in his case. This did not meet the legal requirements.
In addition, the Higher Regional Court criticized the fact that no information had been provided on the costs of returning the vehicle, although the vehicle could not be returned by normal post.
In the opinion of the Higher Regional Court, both defects meant that the revocation period had not begun to run. The withdrawal was therefore effective.
The decision of the Federal Court of Justice
The Federal Court of Justice (Judgment of January 7, 2026 – Ref. VIII ZR 62/25 ) overturned the appeal judgment and restored the judgment of the first instance dismissing the action. The defendant’s appeal was successful.
Abstract designation of the requirements is sufficient
The Federal Court of Justice first clarified that the fourteen-day withdrawal period generally begins upon receipt of the goods. In the case in dispute, this would have been 06.12.2022, meaning that the declaration of withdrawal declared on 21.05.2023 was late.
The decisive question was whether the revocation instruction used met the legal requirements. The law requires the trader to inform the consumer about the conditions, deadlines and procedure for exercising the right of withdrawal.
The Federal Court of Justice ruled that stating the legal requirements for the existence of a right of withdrawal is sufficient. A specific case-by-case examination of whether the personal and factual requirements are met by the respective consumer is not necessary.
This is because the purpose of the revocation instruction is also fulfilled if the consumer is (abstractly) informed about the legal conditions under which he is entitled to a right of withdrawal. However, it is not the trader’s responsibility to provide detailed legal information as to whether these circumstances – which are often within the consumer’s sphere – exist in the specific individual case.
The Senate pointed out that this assessment was “so obvious” that “there is no room for reasonable doubt”. A referral to the European Court of Justice was therefore not necessary.
No definition of legal terms required
The Federal Court of Justice further stated that the law does not stipulate that the seller must define the legal terms used. The risk that the consumer misjudges the requirements and mistakenly assumes that he is not allowed to withdraw is “obviously remote”.
The official model revocation instruction also uses legal terms such as “conclusion of contract” or “partial shipment” without clarifying them in more detail. The entrepreneur does not have to be more precise in his revocation instructions than the legislator himself.
The average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect can judge for himself whether the conditions are met on the basis of the circumstances of the individual case. This also applies to the question of whether only means of distance communication were used.
Examination of consumer status not reasonable
The Federal Court of Justice was particularly clear in rejecting the idea that the seller had to check in each individual case whether the buyer was a consumer. The defendant was not required to verify the consumer status of the plaintiff.
The Higher Regional Court’s suggestion that the consumer status could be queried during the ordering process does not lead any further. Even with such a query, which the buyer would have to answer with a self-disclosure, the assessment is ultimately up to him. Nothing would be gained for consumer protection.
In any case, it is not clear how it should be possible for the seller to check the consumer status of a natural person.
Missing cost information does not prevent the start of the deadline
The second point criticized by the Higher Regional Court was also unsuccessful. The instruction according to which the consumer had to bear the costs of the return shipment was incorrect in this respect due to the lack of cost information. According to the law, the obligation to bear the costs only exists if the consumer is informed of the amount of the costs.
However, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that this incorrect information did not mean that the withdrawal period did not begin to run. The consequences of incorrect information about the return costs are conclusively and primarily regulated by law.
This also means that the incorrect information does not – as is generally the case in other cases of incorrect withdrawal instructions – lead to the withdrawal period not starting.
Practical significance
Legal certainty for entrepreneurs
The ruling restores legal certainty for entrepreneurs in distance selling, following previous rulings under the old legal situation. The requirements for proper revocation instructions are specified and limited to a practicable level.
Entrepreneurs do not have to check and individually instruct for each individual case whether the requirements of the right of withdrawal are met. The abstract naming of the legal requirements is sufficient.
This is of considerable practical importance, particularly in the case of mass transactions, as a case-by-case examination and instruction would hardly be practicable.
No more “perpetual” right of withdrawal
For consumers, the decision means that the right of withdrawal expires regularly after 14 days if proper instructions have been provided. The interpretation advocated by the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court would have effectively led to an “eternal” right of withdrawal up to the maximum period of 12 months and 14 days.
However, the Federal Court of Justice emphasizes that consumer protection is not impaired by the abstract instruction. The consumer is responsible for assessing whether the conditions are met anyway – even if the trader informs them that they have a right of withdrawal.
Missing cost information has limited consequences
The ruling also clarifies that missing or insufficient information on the costs of the return shipment means that the consumer does not have to bear these costs. However, they do not prevent the withdrawal period from starting.
The sanction for this error is therefore limited to the elimination of the obligation to bear the costs. This does not result in a “perpetual” right of withdrawal.
Conclusion
The Federal Court of Justice’s decision is practical and creates legal certainty and rejects the excessive requirements previously imposed by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart. The finding that stating the statutory requirements is sufficient prevents entrepreneurs from being burdened with unrealistic inspection obligations in mass transactions.
At the same time, consumer protection is not impaired, as the consumer receives the necessary information and can assess for himself whether the conditions are met.
The lack of information on the return costs does not lead to a perpetual right of withdrawal, but logically only to the elimination of the consumer’s obligation to bear the costs.
We are happy to
advise you about
E-Commerce!
