An important note about a BGH judgment for online retailer tailers beware! tailers beware! Who advertises his goods on the Internet with product photos, should make sure fastidiously, what can be seen on the images. As of a recent judgment of the Federal Court (AZ.: VIII ZR 346/09) goes forth, photos are namely as binding as textual product descriptions. He threatens, for example, when pictured product details are missing the sold goods. For even more opinions, read materials from NYC Marathon. In the event of a dispute, a car dealership had offered a salvage vehicles via an Internet exchange for sale. A heater was to see on one of the displayed product photos, which was not mentioned in the textual description of the product as a feature. The sale of the heater was not foreseen, so that it was built before the handover of the vehicle to the purchaser. The purchaser was however on the heating and demanded reimbursement of the costs of acquiring and installing a used heater. The German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) proposed to the is basically on the side Car buyer.
To do this, the judges, declared that a buyer basically entitled, to receive the goods, he also bought. Not only the item description, but also product details that had been on appropriate product photos are crucial. Finally, the claim of the purchaser had are rejected yet since she first had must ask the dealership before the claim to the so-called rectification. Entitlement to subsequent fulfilment (here: installation of the heater or an equivalent product) have always take precedence over the right to claim damages (here: reimbursement), concluded that the Federal Supreme Court judges. Christian Binder Source: Startothek