Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-txr5j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-01T21:46:05.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Federal Court of Justice and Expert Liability Towards Third Parties: Public Safeguard and Private Interest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Bernd Kannowski

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

On June 26, 2001 the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) handed down a new decision regarding the liability of experts towards third parties (Reg. No. X ZR 231/99). While the Court appeared to have taken a somewhat new direction, the latest judgement must be considered in the context of a steadily evolving jurisprudence related to the effect on third parties of contracts involving the transfer of expertise, especially in light of a third party's reliance on this expertise. Parties contracting for expert testimony or evaluation regularly do not, at least not explicitly, take a third party into consideration in their contractual dispositions. Problems arise, however, when in the performance of the contract a third party, often the buyer or a bank seeking an evaluation of a client's creditworthiness, substantially relies on this expert evaluation produced pursuant to the contract. Where the seller defaults, the bank (in this example) may attempt to directly sue the expert.

Type
Research Article
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 2 , Issue 13 , 2001 , E3
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

(1) Gesetz über das Kreditwesen: Banking Act of the Federal Republic of Germany (http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/KWG.htm)Google Scholar

(2) See the comprehensive treatise by Heribert Hirte, EXPERTENHAFTUNG, Munich 1996.Google Scholar

(3) See Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice — FCJ), Decision of 2 April 1998, published in: 138 BGHZ (Official Collection of FCJ Cases), p. 257; see also FCJ, Decision of 10 November 1994 – III ZR 50/94, in: 127 BGHZ p. 378, at 381; FCJ, published in: NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT (NJW) 2001, p. 514, at 516; FCJ, in: NJW 1998, 1948, at 1949; FCJ, in: NJW 1987, 1758, at 1759; FCJ, in: NJW 1984, 355, at 356; FCJ, in: NJW 1973, 321; FCJ, in: NJW 1970, p. 1737.Google Scholar

(4) See in particular Bundesgerichtshof, Decision of 28 January 1976 – VIII ZR 246/74, published in: 66 BGHZ p. 51.Google Scholar

(5) See Reichsgericht, published in: 91 RGZ p. 21, at 24.Google Scholar

(6) See Bundesgerichtshof, Decision of 2 April 1998 – III ZR 245/96, published in: 138 BGHZ p. 257.Google Scholar

(7) See, hereto, Bundesgerichtshof, published in 138 BGHZ p. 311; Bundesgerichtshof, Decision of 29 January 1985-VI ZR 130/85, published in NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT (NJW) 1985, p. 1620; see also the article by Rudolf Wiethölter, Zur politischen Funktion des Rechts am eingerichteten und ausgeübten Gewerbetrieb, in: KRITISCHE JUSTIZ (KJ) 1970, p. 121.Google Scholar

(8) See, most recently, Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), Decision of December 12, 1999 — IX ZR 415/98, published in: JURISTENZEITUNG 2000, p. 469; cf. Peer Zumbansen, Drittschützende Wirkung eines Anwaltvertrages und verdeckte Sacheinlage, ibid. at 442.Google Scholar