- A price of €1 does not lead to an effective purchase contract if there is an oversight.
- The Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages.
- The defendant offered a BMW 318d for €1, which was meant as a starting price and not as a buy-it-now offer.
- The statement "Price: € 1.00" was misleading, as the defendant intended to hold an auction.
- The plaintiff claimed €13,000 in damages, which the regional court rejected.
- The defendant's declaration of intent was clearly interpreted from the overall context of the sales offer.
- The judgment is final after the plaintiff withdrew his appeal.
The defendant offered on the Internet auction platform eBay a BMW 318d, first registration April 2011, mileage 172,000 km. After detailed description of the vehicle and the equipment it said: “Price: € 1.00” as well as: “Vehicle must be picked up within three days of auction end – by the highest bidder and paid in cash on site …, immediate purchase offers are welcome.”
The plaintiff bid €1.00 and – automatically – was awarded the contract. Before the regular end of the auction, the defendant ended the auction and pointed out to the plaintiff that the price of € 1.00 had been meant as a starting price and not as a buy-it-now price.
The plaintiff is now seeking damages of a good €13,000, which he believes he would have to pay for a comparable vehicle. The landgericht dismissed the action. The appeal against this decision was also unsuccessful before the Higher Regional Court. The plaintiff was not entitled to damages, the OLG also confirmed.
The defendant had offered a vehicle worth at least € 12,000.00. From the overall context of the sales offer it is clear “that the indication “Price: € 1.00″, which in itself stands for a buy-it-now offer, is an oversight and that the seller – in this case the defendant – wants to auction the vehicle, but not sell it for € 1.00.”
This interpretation of the defendant’s declaration of intent according to the recipient’s horizon was unambiguous here. The defendant did not have to accept that he had made a mistake when entering his offer (submission for immediate purchase), since it was clear from the context that an auction had been intended.
In any case, assuming a valid purchase agreement, the defendant would have effectively challenged his declaration of intent. He had immediately explained to the plaintiff that the price had been meant as a starting price, not as a buy-it-now price, and had therefore aborted the transaction.
The judgment of the district court is final after the plaintiff withdrew his appeal in response to the reference order.
