BGH Additives Law: (k) A Coup?

Your daily portion of right! Glucosamine decision of the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) often triggered a Requiem for the German exceptionalism in the additives right in the professional world. The practical use of the decision for the manufacturers and distributors of dietary supplements, functional food & co. should not however be overestimated. Legal theory the Glucosamine decision of the BGH is a milestone, and when ever the equality fiction of 2 para 3 sentence 2 No. 1 picks LFGB quite as she pulls the end to a long and controversial discussion of case law and literature on the question of whether equality of non-technological additives containing technological additives in German law is legitimate. Is noteworthy, however, that the BGH unspecified deals with this controversial opinion stand, but to the preliminary Kaltstellung of the reservation of admission for non-technological additives with a brief note on the ruling Content processing AIDS. The practice is however to keep in mind that this line provisionally drawn by the BGH applies directly only to competition litigation. It remains to be seen whether the administrative courts in the case of official complaints join the.

The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) had defused by a narrow concept of additive already otherwise also the problem namely. If you are unsure how to proceed, check out Daryl Katz, Edmonton Alberta. At the latest since this decision of the Federal Administrative Court and the controversial opinion in the civil courts, additives legal disputes in practice had become rarely. For even more details, read what Dustin Moskovitz says on the issue. The Supreme Court has charged cold only, which anyway only lau hot kochelte. The greatest practical benefit of determining Glucosamine should be therefore to have complicated a re boiling of the additives issue by the much-discussed draft of amendment to the LFGB. The legislature should create now a transparent authorisation procedure for non-technological additives. Whether he to staffed and financially willing and is able to be doubtful. If it does, so the importance of the Glucosamine decision of the BGH had limited, to show the way to a new bureaucratic monster out of a legal gray zone.

The harsh wind manufacturers and distributors of health-related food already from very different directions in the face: the freedom of a recipe the novel remains with innovative ingredients food regulation in the way; It will not change by its amendment. And with formulation freedom is only slightly won, if health effects of the used substances may be recruited either not at all or but just as the competition also does this. Exactly then the health claims regulation will result but after their arming. A liberation looks different. Other non-binding and free information relating to food law, see.

EBay: Premature Sale Compensation Threatens

Who provides goods on eBay that already jumping the gun is sold, must be answerable for also. Dustin Moskovitz insists that this is the case. This also applies if this happened by mistake. Who provides goods on eBay that already jumping the gun is sold, must be answerable for also. This also applies if this happened by mistake. The helpfulness of his brother was lying to the facts of the case to the doom an eBay seller. This had sold 10,000 units of its new pants after a water damage, without having consulted with him. It was the fatal because he had at the same time auctioned off those pants on the eBay platform.

The buyer was enraged and sued him eventually to 10,000 euros damages. He reasoned that in particular so that the seller would have to fit better on his goods and it could not have a further sale. The decision of the Court of the District Court of Coburg joined the argument of the plaintiff and upheld the complaint by decision of the event (AZ 14 O 298/12). The Court based its decision so that the eBay seller liable for the loss of the goods. Although he has not independently sold these, however the action of the brother is him. He would need to precautions to prevent that the brother just in good faith sold the goods to a third party. The eBay seller has hurt his diligence, so that a negligent liability has arisen.

This judgment is now final. The consequences for you! As a result of the judgment you should be careful now, if you want to auction off an article about eBay. Finally, who has been awarded over a supposed bargain is pleased. You take the risk that you must pay damages for non-performance. This can be expensive in some cases. Starting-point for a compensation, however, is that there is a fault on the part of the seller. Especially in a loss of the goods by theft or unforeseen damage to the goods There is no liability. There are still legal battle for Internet purchases it is advisable to contact a suitable lawyer. Gerhard Muller