Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, 17 December 2010, Ref.: I-24 U 66/10
Usury is regulated in Germany in Section 138 (2) BGB. This states that a legal transaction is void if someone exploits another person's predicament, inexperience, lack of judgement or considerable weakness of will to promise or grant themselves or a third party financial benefits in return for a service that are conspicuously disproportionate to the service.
As the proof of usury often fails due to the high subjective requirements of Section 138 (2) BGB, case law has developed the usury-like legal transaction.
In addition to the objective violation (conspicuous disproportion between performance and consideration), a subjective component (reprehensible attitude of the favoured contractual partner) must also be added to the usurious transaction.
In particular, the question of whether rental agreements are usurious legal transactions is repeatedly the subject of court decisions. This was also the case in the above-mentioned case.
Facts of the Case:
Tenant regarded the rental agreement as usurious
In this case, a claim was made against the defendant (limited partnership in the carpet industry) as the tenant of commercial premises under a commercial lease agreement for payment of outstanding rent.
It also reduced the rent due to defects
In the opinion of the defendant
- the rental agreement is an usurious legal transaction due to the high rent and is therefore void,
- the business basis of the rental agreement has ceased to exist due to a sharp fall in rents and
- a right to reduce the rent due to rental defects.
The Duisburg Regional Court (case reference: 6 O 182/09) had previously ruled in favour of the landlord's claim for payment. The defendant appealed against this decision.
Judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf
The OLG Düsseldorf followed the opinion of the LG Duisburg: The defendant had already failed to demonstrate the objective aspect of an usurious legal transaction within the meaning of Section 138 (1) BGB.
This is regularly the case if there is a conspicuous disproportion between performance and consideration.
Usury would only apply if the average rent had been 100% too high when the contract was concluded
A conspicuous disproportion is regularly assumed if the price exceeds around 100%, i.e. in commercial tenancy law if the value of the agreed cash payment exceeds the customary rental value of a comparable rental property by around twice as much.
It goes without saying that this determination must be made at the time the contract is concluded.
This is because the business behaviour of a contractual partner can only collide with the objective moral law in relation to this decisive point in time, at which the legal intention is formed and reflected in the subsequent conclusion of the contract.
It follows from this that, in particular in the case of falling rents, the rental price development burdening the tenant must be disregarded.
However, the price comparisons made by the defendant did not refer to the time of the conclusion of the contract, but to the time of the statement of defence.
The Regional Court had also correctly denied the subjective aspect of a usurious legal transaction.
The subjective aspect of usury had not been fulfilled either
This would be fulfilled if, in addition to the conspicuous disproportion between performance and consideration, there were further immoral circumstances, such as a reprehensible attitude on the part of the beneficiary or the exploitation of the partner's inexperience.
This was not the case in the present case, in particular because at the time of the assumption of the contract the defendant
- a fully commercially managed company and
- was an expert in the carpet industry with specialised knowledge,
- was not dependent on the controversial commercial hall due to the lack of competition in the city (which it acknowledged) and
- was in a relatively strong negotiating position in view of the insolvency of its contractual predecessor.
The fact that the defendant agreed to a contract amendment (reduction of the rent, postponed due date, alterations) in February 2009 in negotiations with the plaintiff in the knowledge of the (alleged) immorality of the legal transaction also argued against a usurious legal transaction.
Furthermore, according to the defendant's assertion, the significant fall in rents since the conclusion of the contract had not removed the basis of the tenancy agreement within the meaning of Section 313 (1) BGB.
In the case of commercial leases, the tenant bears the business risk
This is because, in accordance with Section 537 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB), the tenant generally bears the risk of utilisation of the leased property in the case of commercial leases. This includes, above all, the risk of being able to make a profit from the rented property.
If the tenant's profit expectation does not materialise, a typical risk of the commercial tenant is realised. Accordingly, it is the tenant's responsibility if, on the basis of structural market changes, a rental price development occurs after the conclusion of the contract that would have a negative impact on its competitiveness.
Furthermore, the rent was not reduced by law (Section 536 (1) BGB) due to a defect in the rented property.
According to Section 536b sentence 1 BGB, this already fails because the managing director of the defendant in the same function had already been aware of the condition of the hall, in particular the lack of insulation of the hall ceiling and the associated heating deficit in very cold weather with the previous tenant, which had become insolvent, without declaring a reservation in this regard when the contract was concluded.
As a result, the defendant had lost any warranty claims (§§ 536, 536a BGB).
Source: Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.
Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients in tenancy law.