Risk
Faulty
withdrawal instructions.
Risk
Faulty
withdrawal instructions.
from
What are the consequences of incorrect withdrawal instructions? A decision by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart shows why incorrect withdrawal instructions can be expensive for retailers.
E-car purchase with right of recall
A customer purchased an electric car worth around €65,000 via the car manufacturer’s online store. The contract was therefore concluded by way of distance selling . Almost a year after the vehicle was delivered, the customer withdrew from the contract. The car manufacturer rejected the withdrawal and refused to take back the vehicle and refund the purchase price. The customer then sued for rescission of the purchase contract and reimbursement of the purchase price.
The car manufacturer argued that the withdrawal was late. The customer, on the other hand, considered the revocation instructions to be incorrect, which meant that the revocation period had never started. The case ultimately ended up before the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart.
OLG Stuttgart on the right of withdrawal
The OLG Stuttgart (Judgment of 08.04.2025 – Ref. 6 U 126/24 ) largely ruled in favor of the customer and found that the car manufacturer’s cancellation policy was defective in several respects.
The court initially objected to the incorrect, abstract instruction. The withdrawal policy began with a conditional sentence (“If you are a consumer…”) and only informed the customer about the abstract legal requirements of the right of withdrawal. However, it did not specifically inform the customer that he was entitled to a right of withdrawal in his particular case. According to the court, it is unreasonable for a legally inexperienced consumer to check the legal terms themselves and apply them to their case. Proper information must be comprehensive, unambiguous and clear.
In addition, the car manufacturer’s instructions contained incorrect information on the return costs. The instruction that the customer must bear the direct costs of returning the goods is only correct if the company has previously provided information about the amount of these costs. As there was no information about the amount of the costs, the information was incorrect and therefore a further defect in the instructions.
Particularly significant is the finding of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart that the car manufacturer is not entitled to compensation for the use of the vehicle by the customer due to the incorrect instruction. Such a claim presupposes that the customer was properly informed about his right of withdrawal. As the instruction was incorrect, the claim for compensation for lost value does not apply in full, even if the customer has used the vehicle up to the point of withdrawal. This legal opinion was also confirmed in a parallel ruling by the Federal Court of Justice.
If the entrepreneur’s revocation instruction suffers from defects that prevent the revocation period from running, this also prevents the entrepreneur from claiming compensation.
What is interesting, however, is the court’s finding regarding use after the revocation. The OLG Stuttgart found that the customer is obliged to compensate the car manufacturer for the use of the vehicle after the revocation. Although the claim for compensation for lost value does not apply, the customer infringes his duty of care if he continues to use the goods after the declaration of revocation. The court judged the customer’s conduct to be intentional and thus justified the liability for damages.
General consequences for companies
This ruling underlines how important it is for companies to use correct withdrawal instructions and to have the withdrawal instructions used carefully checked. The use of incomplete or misleading instructions can entail far-reaching financial risks.
Incorrect withdrawal instructions have far-reaching legal and financial consequences for companies. First of all, inadequate instructions mean that the statutory withdrawal period of 14 days does not start at all. The right of withdrawal then only expires twelve months and 14 days after receipt of the goods. This gives customers, who may have been satisfied with the goods for a long time, an unexpectedly long right of withdrawal and can lead to unpleasant surprises for companies.
Furthermore, in the event of incorrect instructions, the company loses any claim to compensation for the use or reduction in value of the goods that occurred before the withdrawal. In the case of high-priced products, as in this case, this loss of the right to compensation can mean considerable financial losses for the company.
In addition, high costs are incurred when the contract is reversed. In the event of withdrawal, companies not only have to repay the full purchase price, but may also have to bear the return shipping costs if they have not correctly informed the customer about the obligation to bear the costs. This combination of extended deadlines, lost claims for compensation for lost value and additional cost risks makes it clear how important it is for companies involved in distance selling to provide legally sound withdrawal instructions.
Other courts have also ruled similarly and confirmed the strict line in the assessment of withdrawal notices. This shows that this is now established case law and not an outlier in individual cases.
Conclusion
The ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart is a clear signal to all companies in e-commerce.
Incorrect revocation instructions can be expensive and ultimately lead to the entrepreneur being left completely empty-handed for services rendered. It is therefore essential for every company to ensure that the withdrawal policy fully complies with the legal requirements. Those who skimp here risk high financial losses in the end.
We are happy to
advise you about
E-Commerce!
