Higher Regional Court of Brandenburg, 23 October 2012, Ref.: 6 U 29/12
If a commercial tenancy agreement is to be terminated by a legal entity (e.g. a civil law partnership) through the legal representative, the attorney giving notice of termination must be authorised by all partners of the civil law partnership.
The representation relationships of the partnership under civil law result from the partnership agreement in accordance with § 714 BGB.
If the company does not act through all of its shareholders, a situation corresponding to that of Section 174 BGB also exists with regard to their participation in legal transactions.
If a shareholder acts alone, he must either submit a power of attorney from the other shareholders or prove the power of representation claimed by him from the articles of association by submitting it or by submitting a declaration from all or the other shareholders on the regulation of the representation of the company.
If such proof is not provided, a declaration that is not made by all shareholders can be rejected in accordance with § 174 BGB.
In the above-mentioned decision, the legal representative of a GbR had repeatedly declared the cancellation of a commercial lease both out of court and in court. The power of attorney issued to him had been signed by only one partner and was therefore immediately rejected by the recipient of the cancellation.
Background to the rental dispute
The plaintiff operated an ice cream parlour in the rented premises, which originally belonged to the insolvency estate of a cooperative. As part of the insolvency proceedings, the plaintiff concluded a lease agreement for the commercial premises with the insolvency administrator. The lease ran from 1 November 2009 to 31 October 2011 and granted the plaintiff two three-year extension options. A further verbal agreement concerned the use of eight car parking spaces.
In September 2010, the property was acquired by the defendant, a civil law partnership. After the takeover, the defendant asked the plaintiff to clarify the use of the parking spaces. The plaintiff stated that there was a verbal agreement regarding the use of the parking spaces. The defendant then cancelled the rental agreement, as the use of the parking spaces had not been regulated in writing, which was in breach of the written form requirement pursuant to Section 550 BGB.
Cancellations and reactions
In December 2010 and January 2011, the defendant initially declared the ordinary termination of the rental agreement, as it considered the verbal agreement regarding the parking spaces to be a breach of contract. However, the plaintiff rejected the notices of termination as the defendant's lawyers did not have sufficient authorisation. In addition, the plaintiff exercised its renewal option in April 2011, which was intended to extend the lease for a further three years.
In her action, the plaintiff demanded a declaration that the tenancy had not been terminated by the notices of termination and was still valid. The defendant then filed a counterclaim and demanded the eviction of the premises and the surrender of the parking spaces. It argued that the tenancy agreement was concluded for an indefinite period due to the verbal agreement regarding the parking spaces and the associated lack of written form and could therefore be terminated with due notice.
Decision of the Regional Court
The regional court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the defendant's notices of termination. It ruled that the rental agreement fulfilled the written form criteria pursuant to Section 550 BGB and could therefore not be terminated with notice. The verbal agreement regarding the parking spaces was not considered to be an essential part of the contract, meaning that the tenancy agreement remained valid. The defendant's counterclaim was also dismissed.
Judgement of the Higher Regional Court of Brandenburg
The Higher Regional Court of Brandenburg confirmed the decision of the Regional Court. It ruled that the defendant had entered into the existing tenancy agreement with the purchase of the property. The defendant's notices of termination from December 2010 and January 2011 were invalid as the required authorisation was missing. The later ordinary notice of termination from October 2011 was also deemed invalid, as the rental agreement could not be terminated in accordance with Section 550 BGB due to the written renewal option. The termination without notice for good cause in December 2011 was also rejected, as the defendant had no right to terminate without notice.
Conclusion
The Higher Regional Court of Brandenburg ruled in favour of the plaintiff and confirmed that the rental agreement for the commercial premises continued to exist. The defendant had no legal basis for the cancellation, neither due to the lack of written form nor for good cause. The verbal agreement regarding the parking spaces was not recognised as a decisive part of the contract.
Source: Higher Regional Court of Brandenburg
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 provide advice and representation in tenancy law.