{"id":5212,"date":"2026-09-04T15:17:54","date_gmt":"2026-09-04T13:17:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/knowledge-base\/used-car-dealer-refuses-repair-germany\/"},"modified":"2026-09-04T15:17:54","modified_gmt":"2026-09-04T13:17:54","slug":"used-car-dealer-refuses-repair-germany","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/used-car-dealer-refuses-repair-germany\/","title":{"rendered":"Used car dealer refuses repair in Germany: how the buyer recovered \u20ac7,535.57 for the repair \u2014 and why driving the defective car cost him the loss-of-use claim"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n<div id=\"progress\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/div>\r\n\r\n<!-- EN version of naprawa-auta-z-niemiec-na-koszt-sprzedawcy (LG Frankfurt a. M. 2-12 O 32\/24, OLG Frankfurt 9 U 44\/25).\r\n     Sources verified 04.09.2026 \u2014 full list in the PL script publish-nutzungsausfall-pl.php (LG Frankfurt full text BeckRS 2025,\r\n     41934, OLG Frankfurt 9 U 44\/25 via ra-kotz.de\/dejure, BGH VI ZR 35\/22 full text, VIII ZR 43\/05, VIII ZR 103\/15, VI ZR 267\/83,\r\n     III ZR 137\/62, VI ZR 271\/64, statutes on gesetze-im-internet.de). -->\r\n<header>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <a href=\"\/en\/\" class=\"brand\" aria-label=\"BWLAW \u2013 home\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/logo-bw.png\" alt=\"BWLAW \u2013 law firm in Germany\" width=\"42\" height=\"28\"><\/a>\r\n    <nav aria-label=\"Main navigation\">\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/\">Construction law<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/debt-collection\/\">Debt collection<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/company-formation\/\">Corporate law<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/employment-law\/\">Employment law<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"\/en\/defective-car-from-germany\/\">Cars<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/\" class=\"active\">Knowledge base<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"\/en\/#zespol\">Team<\/a>\r\n    <\/nav>\r\n    <div class=\"lang\" role=\"group\" aria-label=\"Language\">\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/used-car-dealer-refuses-repair-germany\/\" class=\"active\" lang=\"en\" hreflang=\"en\" aria-current=\"true\">EN<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/wissen\/nutzungsausfall-auto-mangel\/\" lang=\"de\" hreflang=\"de\" aria-label=\"German version of this article\">DE<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/pl\/baza-wiedzy\/naprawa-auta-z-niemiec-na-koszt-sprzedawcy\/\" lang=\"pl\" hreflang=\"pl\" aria-label=\"Polish version of this article\">PL<\/a>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n    <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/defective-car-from-germany\/#kontakt\" class=\"btn\">Contact a lawyer <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a>\r\n    <button class=\"burger\" aria-label=\"Menu\">\u2630<\/button>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/header>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"shero\" style=\"padding-bottom:3.5rem\">\r\n  <div class=\"glow\"><\/div>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\" style=\"grid-template-columns:1fr\">\r\n    <div>\r\n      <nav class=\"crumbs\" aria-label=\"Breadcrumbs\"><a href=\"\/en\/\">Home<\/a><span>\/<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/\">Knowledge base<\/a><span>\/<\/span><b>Cars<\/b><\/nav>\r\n      <span class=\"eyebrow\">Cars<\/span>\r\n      <h1 style=\"max-width:34ch\">Used car dealer refuses repair in Germany: how the buyer recovered \u20ac7,535.57 for the repair \u2014 and why driving the defective car cost him the loss-of-use claim<\/h1>\r\n      <p class=\"lead\">A used car buyer claimed \u20ac122,325 in loss-of-use compensation for 699 days \u2014 and received \u20ac350. The Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main awarded him the repair costs of \u20ac7,535.57 because the dealer had failed to repair the unroadworthy headlight despite a deadline, but refused compensation for the time in which the buyer kept driving the defective car \u201cas usual\u201d (judgment of 6 March 2025, 2-12 O 32\/24). The Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt confirmed the ruling and refused leave to appeal (order of 11 December 2025, 9 U 44\/25). This guide explains what happens when a used car dealer refuses repair in Germany: who has to prove the defect, when interest starts to run and why the buyer bears 93 per cent of the litigation costs despite winning the repair bill.<\/p>\r\n      <div class=\"art-meta\">\r\n        <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/dr-artur-barczewski.webp\" alt=\"Dr. Artur Barczewski\" width=\"46\" height=\"46\" loading=\"lazy\">\r\n        <div><b>Dr. Artur Barczewski<\/b>Rechtsanwalt \u00b7 attorney-at-law<\/div>\r\n        <div style=\"margin-left:1rem;border-left:1px solid rgba(255,255,255,.25);padding-left:1rem\">\u2248 21 min read<br>updated: September 2026<\/div>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n\r\n<article class=\"sec\">\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <div class=\"prose rv\" style=\"font-size:1.02rem\">\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">What did the Frankfurt courts decide on repair costs and loss of use?<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The buyer of a used car recovered \u20ac7,535.57 in repair costs from the dealer, but of the \u20ac122,325 he claimed as loss-of-use compensation (Nutzungsausfallentsch\u00e4digung) he received only \u20ac350, for the two days the car spent in the workshop (Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main, Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, judgment of 6 March 2025, 2-12 O 32\/24, BeckRS 2025, 41934). The Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the buyer\u2019s appeal by unanimous order and refused leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Justice (order of 11 December 2025, 9 U 44\/25). A buyer who keeps driving a defective car \u201cas usual\u201d suffers no tangible economic loss, and without such a loss there is no loss-of-use compensation.<\/p>\r\n      <p>The buyer had bought the car, first registered in April 2018, from a used car dealer in June 2021. About a month after delivery, water appeared inside the right front headlight. A workshop consulted by the dealer found no defect, and goodwill requests to the manufacturer were rejected. After a deadline for remedying the defect passed without result, the buyer applied for independent evidentiary proceedings (selbst\u00e4ndiges Beweisverfahren, \u00a7 485 (2) of the German Code of Civil Procedure, ZPO), a court-supervised expert examination outside a lawsuit. The court expert found that the headlight\u2019s ventilation had failed, the fan\u2019s circuit board had corroded and the car was not roadworthy because droplets in the headlight threatened to dazzle oncoming traffic. The buyer had the car repaired in June 2023, having driven it without any restriction for almost two years.<\/p>\r\n      <p>The real lesson of the case lies in the costs order. Because the buyer lost almost entirely on his inflated loss-of-use claim, he bears 93 per cent of the costs of the litigation, including the evidentiary proceedings (\u00a7 92 (1) sentence 1 ZPO), even though he won on the core claim. We put a figure on that in the section on the cost trap.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Why did the dealer have to reimburse the repair costs of \u20ac7,535.57?<\/h3>\r\n      <p>Because the car was defective at delivery and the dealer let the deadline for repair expire. The buyer could therefore claim damages in lieu of performance (Schadensersatz statt der Leistung, \u00a7 437 no. 3, \u00a7 440, \u00a7 280 (1), \u00a7 281 (1) of the German Civil Code, BGB) and pass the full workshop invoice on to the dealer. When a used car dealer refuses repair in Germany, the route to that result has three stages.<\/p>\r\n      <p>First, the defect. The contract from 2021 was still governed by the old law of sales (Art. 229 \u00a7 58 of the Introductory Act to the BGB, EGBGB). Under it, goods were free from defects if they were fit for the use presupposed by the contract (\u00a7 434 (1) sentence 2 no. 1 BGB in the version in force until 31 December 2021). A car that is not roadworthy because of moisture in a headlight is not fit for driving on public roads. For contracts concluded since 1 January 2022, safety is expressly part of the usual quality a buyer may expect (\u00a7 434 (3) sentence 2 BGB).<\/p>\r\n      <p>Second, the deadline. In December 2021 the buyer demanded by e-mail and registered letter that the dealer remedy the defect by 14 January 2022. The dealer remedied nothing and merely replied that its workshop had found no defect. The deadline under \u00a7 281 (1) sentence 1 BGB had thus expired without result. Consumers today can dispense with a deadline altogether in certain cases, for instance where the trader fails to carry out the repair within a reasonable period after being notified of the defect (\u00a7 475d (1) no. 1, (2) BGB). Proof that the notice reached the dealer should still be secured by registered mail.<\/p>\r\n      <p>Third, the settlement of the bill. The buyer had the repair carried out and claimed the invoice. An advance payment towards repair costs, as known in the law of contracts for work and services (\u00a7 637 (3) BGB), does not exist in the law of sales. The Higher Regional Court said so in terms:<\/p>\r\n      <blockquote style=\"margin:1.6rem 0;padding:1.2rem 1.5rem;background:rgba(194,85,49,.08);border-left:3px solid var(--terra);border-radius:0 14px 14px 0\">\r\n        <p style=\"font-style:italic;margin-bottom:.7rem\">\u201eDer Kl\u00e4ger war zu keinem Zeitpunkt berechtigt, einen Vorschuss zur M\u00e4ngelbeseitigung geltend zu machen. Dieser aus dem Werkvertragsrecht stammende Anspruch aus \u00a7 637 Abs. 3 BGB ist dem Kaufrecht fremd. Ihm standen hingegen M\u00e4ngelgew\u00e4hrleistungsrechte aus \u00a7 437 BGB zur Verf\u00fcgung, die grunds\u00e4tzlich einen Vorrang des Nachbesserungsrechts des Beklagten vorsehen.\u201c<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"margin-bottom:.7rem\">\u201cAt no point was the claimant entitled to demand an advance towards remedying the defect. That claim, which originates in the law of contracts for work (\u00a7 637 (3) BGB), is alien to the law of sales. What he did have were the warranty rights under \u00a7 437 BGB, which in principle give priority to the defendant\u2019s right to repair.\u201d<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"font-size:.85rem;color:var(--ink-soft);margin:0\">OLG Frankfurt am Main, order of 11 December 2025, 9 U 44\/25 \u2014 own translation<\/p>\r\n      <\/blockquote>\r\n      <p>The dealer\u2019s objection that the buyer had altered vehicle settings with a diagnostic device and thereby forfeited his warranty rights failed. The terms of use of the diagnostic app were not an agreement between buyer and dealer, and in any event they concerned only guarantee claims against the manufacturer. The seller\u2019s statutory warranty (Gew\u00e4hrleistung) and a manufacturer\u2019s guarantee (Herstellergarantie) are two different things.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Who has to prove that the defect already existed at delivery?<\/h3>\r\n      <p>In a consumer sale, the dealer, as soon as the defect appears within the presumption period. For the Frankfurt contract from 2021 that period was six months (\u00a7 477 BGB in the version in force until 31 December 2021). For contracts concluded since 1 January 2022 it is one year from delivery (\u00a7 477 (1) sentence 1 BGB). If the defective condition shows itself within that period, the goods are presumed to have been defective when the risk passed. The buyer need neither identify the cause nor prove that it lies within the seller\u2019s sphere of responsibility. A consumer is anyone who buys the car mainly for private purposes (\u00a7 13 BGB), a trader is anyone who sells it in the course of a business (\u00a7 14 (1) BGB).<\/p>\r\n      <p>The presumption reaches further than many dealers assume. According to the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), it is also presumed that a defective condition appearing within the period was already present, at least in its origins, at delivery, the so-called underlying defect (Grundmangel, BGH, judgment of 12 October 2016, VIII ZR 103\/15, NJW 2017, 1093). In the Frankfurt case the photographs of the fogged headlight from July 2021, one month after delivery, were therefore enough. Whether the fan had failed permanently or only intermittently was not for the buyer to clarify.<\/p>\r\n      <p>The dealer must rebut the presumption in full (\u00a7 292 ZPO):<\/p>\r\n      <blockquote style=\"margin:1.6rem 0;padding:1.2rem 1.5rem;background:rgba(194,85,49,.08);border-left:3px solid var(--terra);border-radius:0 14px 14px 0\">\r\n        <p style=\"font-style:italic;margin-bottom:.7rem\">\u201eEine blo\u00dfe Ersch\u00fctterung der Vermutung ist nicht ausreichend. Erforderlich ist vielmehr der volle Beweis des Gegenteils der vermuteten Tatsache.\u201c<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"margin-bottom:.7rem\">\u201cMerely shaking the presumption is not enough. What is required is full proof of the opposite of the presumed fact.\u201d<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"font-size:.85rem;color:var(--ink-soft);margin:0\">LG Frankfurt am Main, judgment of 6 March 2025, 2-12 O 32\/24, BeckRS 2025, 41934, para. 33 \u2014 own translation<\/p>\r\n      <\/blockquote>\r\n      <p>The dealer alleged that the buyer had accidentally switched off the fan while tinkering with the diagnostic device. Faced with such an allegation of improper handling, the consumer carries a secondary burden of explanation (sekund\u00e4re Darlegungslast): he must set out in concrete terms that he did not handle the goods improperly. The buyer managed that with the diagnostic log, which listed the settings he had changed but showed no intervention in the fan control. The ball was then in the dealer\u2019s court. The dealer, however, failed to pay the advance on costs for the expert opinion ordered by the court and declared at the hearing that he was not pursuing his application for evidence (\u00a7 379 sentence 2 in conjunction with \u00a7 402 ZPO). The presumption thus stood unrebutted. How the reversal of the burden of proof works in detail is explained in our article on the <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/car-from-germany-broke-down-after-purchase\/\">car from Germany that broke down after purchase<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Deleted fault memory: did the buyer spoil the evidence?<\/h3>\r\n      <p>No, at least not in this case. The buyer had the car\u2019s fault memory cleared shortly before the expert\u2019s examination, according to him during a battery change carried out by an acquaintance. The dealer saw this as spoliation of evidence (Beweisvereitelung) and argued that the presumption under \u00a7 477 BGB should therefore not apply against him. The Regional Court rejected this because it was not established that the deletion had put the dealer at any evidential disadvantage at all.<\/p>\r\n      <p>According to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice, spoliation of evidence occurs where a party culpably makes it harder or impossible for the opponent bearing the burden of proof to produce evidence, for example by destroying or withholding existing evidence. The consequences are evidential relief for the opponent, up to a reversal of the burden of proof. The classic example is a buyer who has an allegedly defective part replaced at a workshop without instructing the workshop to keep it, as decided for the turbocharger of an eleven-year-old used car (BGH, judgment of 23 November 2005, VIII ZR 43\/05, NJW 2006, 434).<\/p>\r\n      <p>In the Frankfurt case there was no impediment to begin with. The buyer had read out the fault memory regularly from the day after delivery and had produced the diagnostic log. On that basis the court had ordered a supplementary expert opinion, which did not take place only because the dealer did not pay the advance. The buyer\u2019s motives were therefore no longer relevant. The practical lesson stands nonetheless: anyone asserting a defect must not allow anything to be done to the vehicle that obscures its condition. Removed parts must be kept, the fault memory read out and saved, and dated photographs taken.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Loss of use: why only \u20ac350 instead of \u20ac122,325?<\/h3>\r\n      <p>Because the buyer had continued to use the car without restriction until the repair. Loss-of-use compensation requires a tangible economic disadvantage, and nobody who drives every day as usual suffers one. The court awarded only the two workshop days, 12 and 13 June 2023, at \u20ac175 each, \u20ac350 in total (\u00a7 437 no. 3, \u00a7 440, \u00a7 280 (1) BGB).<\/p>\r\n      <p>Since the 1960s the Federal Court of Justice has recognised that the temporary loss of the ability to use a motor vehicle is a recoverable pecuniary loss even if the injured party does not hire a replacement car (BGH, judgment of 30 September 1963, III ZR 137\/62, BGHZ 40, 345, and judgment of 15 April 1966, VI ZR 271\/64, BGHZ 45, 212). The amount is assessed as a lump sum from tables that sort vehicles into groups. The Frankfurt buyer calculated with group L at \u20ac175 per day, for 699 days. The precondition is always that the owner wanted to use the vehicle in the period in question and was able to do so: the will to use (Nutzungswille) and the possibility of use (Nutzungsm\u00f6glichkeit) are indispensable (BGH, judgment of 26 March 1985, VI ZR 267\/83, NJW 1985, 2471).<\/p>\r\n      <p>On top of that comes the requirement that the loss be \u201ctangible\u201d (f\u00fchlbar). The Federal Court of Justice demands that the injured party would really have needed the vehicle for everyday life for want of another suitable car:<\/p>\r\n      <blockquote style=\"margin:1.6rem 0;padding:1.2rem 1.5rem;background:rgba(194,85,49,.08);border-left:3px solid var(--terra);border-radius:0 14px 14px 0\">\r\n        <p style=\"font-style:italic;margin-bottom:.7rem\">\u201eAn einem f\u00fchlbaren Nutzungsausfall fehlt es daher, wenn dem Gesch\u00e4digten ein weiteres Fahrzeug zur Verf\u00fcgung steht, dessen ersatzweise Nutzung ihm zumutbar ist.\u201c<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"margin-bottom:.7rem\">\u201cThere is therefore no tangible loss of use where the injured party has another vehicle at his disposal whose use as a substitute can reasonably be expected of him.\u201d<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"font-size:.85rem;color:var(--ink-soft);margin:0\">BGH, judgment of 11 October 2022, VI ZR 35\/22, NJW 2023, 47, para. 12 \u2014 own translation<\/p>\r\n      <\/blockquote>\r\n      <p>The Regional Court transferred this reasoning to the continued use of a defective vehicle. The buyer had admitted at the hearing that despite the lack of roadworthiness he had \u201ccarried on using the car quite normally (\u2026) as usual\u201d. The will to use and the actual possibility of use were therefore present, and legally he should not have been driving. That was not enough for the court:<\/p>\r\n      <blockquote style=\"margin:1.6rem 0;padding:1.2rem 1.5rem;background:rgba(194,85,49,.08);border-left:3px solid var(--terra);border-radius:0 14px 14px 0\">\r\n        <p style=\"font-style:italic;margin-bottom:.7rem\">\u201eDer Voraussetzung eines f\u00fchlbaren wirtschaftlichen Schadens wohnt n\u00e4mlich \u2013 wie mit dem Begriff \u201ef\u00fchlbar\u201c zum Ausdruck kommt \u2013 ein reales Moment inne. Daran fehlt es, wenn der Gesch\u00e4digte das nicht verkehrssichere Fahrzeug tats\u00e4chlich \u201ewie sonst\u201c, also ohne Einschr\u00e4nkung, weiter benutzt. Das hypothetische Argument, der Gesch\u00e4digte h\u00e4tte das Fahrzeug aus rechtlichen Gr\u00fcnden nicht benutzen d\u00fcrfen, ist demgegen\u00fcber unerheblich.\u201c<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"margin-bottom:.7rem\">\u201cThe requirement of a tangible economic loss has, as the term \u2018tangible\u2019 conveys, a real element to it. That element is missing where the injured party in fact continues to use the unroadworthy vehicle \u2018as usual\u2019, that is without restriction. The hypothetical argument that the injured party would not have been allowed to use the vehicle for legal reasons is irrelevant by comparison.\u201d<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"font-size:.85rem;color:var(--ink-soft);margin:0\">LG Frankfurt am Main, judgment of 6 March 2025, 2-12 O 32\/24, BeckRS 2025, 41934, para. 58 \u2014 own translation<\/p>\r\n      <\/blockquote>\r\n      <p>The buyer relied on a decision of the Regional Court of Nuremberg-F\u00fcrth (LG N\u00fcrnberg-F\u00fcrth, NJW-RR 2020, 1350), according to which no loss of use can be claimed for a vehicle that was already unroadworthy before the accident. The Frankfurt court distinguished the two situations: that case concerned the hypothetical possibility of use as a precondition of the claim. Where it is missing, there is no loss. The Frankfurt case concerned the opposite question, whether someone who in fact keeps using the vehicle without restriction can claim money merely because he should not have been using it. The answer is no. The Higher Regional Court confirmed this on appeal:<\/p>\r\n      <blockquote style=\"margin:1.6rem 0;padding:1.2rem 1.5rem;background:rgba(194,85,49,.08);border-left:3px solid var(--terra);border-radius:0 14px 14px 0\">\r\n        <p style=\"font-style:italic;margin-bottom:.7rem\">\u201eMa\u00dfgeblich ist allein, ob dem Kl\u00e4ger tats\u00e4chlich keine Nutzungsm\u00f6glichkeit offenstand. Ein f\u00fchlbarer wirtschaftlicher Nachteil kann nicht darin liegen, dass der Kl\u00e4ger sein Fahrzeug nutzt, sei es auch nicht verkehrssicher.\u201c<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"margin-bottom:.7rem\">\u201cThe only decisive question is whether the claimant in fact had no possibility of use. A tangible economic disadvantage cannot consist in the claimant using his vehicle, even if it is not roadworthy.\u201d<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"font-size:.85rem;color:var(--ink-soft);margin:0\">OLG Frankfurt am Main, order of 11 December 2025, 9 U 44\/25 \u2014 own translation<\/p>\r\n      <\/blockquote>\r\n      <p>In practice this means: anyone who wants to claim loss of use for a defective car must actually forgo its use, park the vehicle and document that decision. If there is a second car in the household, its reasonable use excludes the claim. Anyone who hires a replacement instead claims the hire costs as damages. And anyone who drives gets nothing, except for the days on which the car is actually in the workshop.<\/p>\r\n      <p>Loss of use (Nutzungsausfall) should not be confused with compensation for use (Nutzungsersatz), which works the other way round: the buyer pays the dealer for kilometres driven when withdrawing from the contract. How it is calculated is shown in our article on <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/car-purchase-rescission-germany\/\">car purchase rescission in Germany<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">When does default interest start to run, and why not from the notice of defect?<\/h3>\r\n      <p>Default interest on the repair costs ran only from 18 February 2023, the day after the first quantified payment deadline expired. A demand to remedy a defect is not a demand for payment (Mahnung) of a money debt, and only a money debt bears interest during default (\u00a7 286 (1) sentence 1, \u00a7 288 (1) BGB). In December 2021 the buyer had demanded a repair, not money:<\/p>\r\n      <blockquote style=\"margin:1.6rem 0;padding:1.2rem 1.5rem;background:rgba(194,85,49,.08);border-left:3px solid var(--terra);border-radius:0 14px 14px 0\">\r\n        <p style=\"font-style:italic;margin-bottom:.7rem\">\u201eMit der Aufforderung zur M\u00e4ngelbeseitigung vom 23.12.2021 und 27.12.2021 wurde eine Geldschuld, n\u00e4mlich die Bezahlung eines bestimmten Betrags, nicht begehrt.\u201c<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"margin-bottom:.7rem\">\u201cThe demands to remedy the defect of 23 and 27 December 2021 did not seek a money debt, that is payment of a specific amount.\u201d<\/p>\r\n        <p style=\"font-size:.85rem;color:var(--ink-soft);margin:0\">LG Frankfurt am Main, judgment of 6 March 2025, 2-12 O 32\/24, BeckRS 2025, 41934, para. 51 \u2014 own translation<\/p>\r\n      <\/blockquote>\r\n      <p>The lawyer\u2019s letter of February 2022 did not help either, although a cost estimate of \u20ac4,990.68 was attached: it merely asked the dealer to acknowledge his duty to remedy the defect, not to pay. And the dealer\u2019s e-mail that its workshop had found no defect was not a serious and final refusal to perform (\u00a7 286 (2) no. 3 BGB), because the dealer offered at the same time to have the damage assessed at its own expense. Default occurred only when the lawyer demanded a quantified sum of \u20ac6,158 on 1 February 2023 with a deadline of 17 February 2023. On the remainder of the repair costs, interest ran from service of the claim on 25 January 2024 (\u00a7 291 BGB).<\/p>\r\n      <p>The Higher Regional Court framed the same logic from the angle of the law of damages: the dealer\u2019s refusal entitled the buyer \u201cmerely to have the repair carried out and then to claim the repair costs, or to settle on a notional basis\u201d, and only with the buyer\u2019s election on 1 February 2023 could the dealer be put in default (OLG Frankfurt am Main, order of 11 December 2025, 9 U 44\/25, own translation). In passing, the Higher Regional Court corrected an arithmetical error of the Regional Court: interest from service of the claim is due on \u20ac1,377.57, not on \u20ac1,355.57 (\u00a7 319 (1) ZPO).<\/p>\r\n      <p>The same limit applies to pre-litigation lawyer\u2019s fees. The court awarded \u20ac713.76 calculated on a value of \u20ac6,158, that is only on the amount the lawyer had justifiably demanded before the lawsuit. Anyone who wants to start the interest clock early must send an early, quantified demand for payment with a deadline, if necessary on the basis of a cost estimate before the repair is carried out.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">The cost trap: 93 per cent of the litigation costs despite winning the repair costs<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The buyer bears 93 per cent of the costs of the litigation including the independent evidentiary proceedings, the dealer 7 per cent (\u00a7 92 (1) sentence 1 ZPO). Measured against the value in dispute of \u20ac129,860.57, the buyer succeeded with \u20ac7,885.57, roughly six per cent. He bears the costs of the appeal in full (\u00a7 97 (1) ZPO), and the Higher Regional Court set the fee value of the appeal at up to \u20ac125,000.<\/p>\r\n      <p>A sample calculation under the fee tables in force since 1 June 2025 shows what that means. At a value in dispute of up to \u20ac140,000, the first instance costs around \u20ac16,100 without an expert: \u20ac4,434 in court fees (a 3.0 fee under no. 1210 of the schedule of costs to the Court Costs Act, GKG) and two lawyers at \u20ac5,836.95 gross each (a 1.3 procedural fee and a 1.2 hearing fee under nos. 3100 and 3104 of the schedule of fees to the Lawyers\u2019 Remuneration Act, RVG, plus expenses allowance and VAT). 93 per cent of that is around \u20ac14,980. Had the buyer sued only for the repair costs and the two workshop days, \u20ac7,885.57, the value in dispute would have fallen into the band up to \u20ac8,000. The first instance would then have cost around \u20ac3,930, and the dealer would have borne all of it.<\/p>\r\n      <p>The lesson: suing for 699 days of loss of use while driving the car every day is not a bargaining chip but a cost risk. The claim should be limited to what is actually enforceable under the principles of the Federal Court of Justice. Anyone unsure whether a claim will hold asserts it out of court first or sues for a partial amount, rather than inflating the value in dispute with a maximum demand.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">What is different for contracts concluded since 2022?<\/h3>\r\n      <p>Three points of the Frankfurt case would look different today, but not the outcome. First, the presumption period under \u00a7 477 (1) sentence 1 BGB has been one year instead of six months since 1 January 2022, so the headlight from July 2021 would fall within it comfortably. Second, under \u00a7 434 (3) sentence 2 BGB the safety of goods is expressly part of the usual quality a buyer may expect, so an unroadworthy vehicle is all the more defective. Third, a consumer no longer needs to set a deadline before claiming damages where the trader fails to carry out the repair within a reasonable period after notice of the defect (\u00a7 475d (1) no. 1, (2) BGB).<\/p>\r\n      <p>The principles on loss of use have remained unchanged, because they come not from the law of sales but from the general law of damages (\u00a7 249 et seq. BGB). Anyone who keeps driving the car receives no compensation under the new law either for the time spent driving. The priority of repair by the seller is also unchanged: the dealer may repair first, and the advance on costs known from the law of contracts for work does not exist in the law of sales. Which costs the dealer has to bear when carrying out the repair is shown in our article on the <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/defective-car-germany-transport-costs\/\">defective car from Germany and transport costs<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n      <p>You bought a defective car in Germany and the dealer is not responding? We set the repair deadline correctly, secure the evidence, quantify repair costs and loss of use so that the claim does not blow up the cost risk, and conduct the proceedings in German and Polish. Details on our page on <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/defective-car-from-germany\/\">defective cars bought in Germany<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"hl rv\" style=\"max-width:760px\">\r\n      <span class=\"eyebrow\">Checklist<\/span>\r\n      <h3>Defect in a used car \u2014 what to secure before suing<\/h3>\r\n      <p>Notify the defect in writing immediately and take dated photographs. Set a deadline for repair by registered letter (\u00a7 281 (1) BGB) and, as a consumer, keep the relief under \u00a7 475d BGB in mind. Do not allow anything to be done to the vehicle that obscures its condition: keep removed parts, read out and save the fault memory (spoliation of evidence, BGH VIII ZR 43\/05). Presumption period: one year from delivery (\u00a7 477 (1) BGB), document the appearance of the defect within that period. Loss of use only if you actually forgo use: park the car, consider a second car, otherwise hire a replacement and claim the costs. Default: send a quantified demand for payment with a deadline, a demand for repair is not enough (\u00a7 286 BGB). Quantify the claim realistically, the costs ratio follows the ratio of success to failure (\u00a7 92 ZPO). Limitation: two years from delivery (\u00a7 438 (1) no. 3, (2) BGB), an application for independent evidentiary proceedings suspends it (\u00a7 204 (1) no. 7 BGB).<\/p>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"prose rv\" style=\"font-size:1.02rem\">\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Frequently asked questions<\/h3>\r\n      <p><strong>Do I get loss-of-use compensation if I keep driving the defective car?<\/strong><br>No. Loss-of-use compensation requires a tangible economic disadvantage, and there is none if you actually use the vehicle as usual (LG Frankfurt am Main, 2-12 O 32\/24, confirmed by OLG Frankfurt am Main, 9 U 44\/25). The fact that you should not have been driving in law changes nothing. Only the days on which the car was actually unavailable, for instance in the workshop, are compensated.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>How much is loss-of-use compensation per day?<\/strong><br>The courts estimate it as a lump sum from tables that sort vehicles into groups by type and age. In the Frankfurt case the daily rate for group L was \u20ac175. The rate applies, however, only to days on which you wanted to use the car, were able to use it and really went without it for want of a reasonable second car (BGH, judgment of 11 October 2022, VI ZR 35\/22).<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>Does the dealer have to pay me an advance for the repair?<\/strong><br>No. The advance on costs under \u00a7 637 (3) BGB exists only in the law of contracts for work. In the law of sales the dealer first has the right to repair (OLG Frankfurt am Main, order of 11 December 2025, 9 U 44\/25). Only after a deadline has expired without result (\u00a7 281 (1) BGB) or in the cases of \u00a7 475d BGB can you have the repair done yourself and claim the invoice as damages.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>Who has to prove that the defect was already there at the time of purchase?<\/strong><br>When buying from a dealer, the dealer, if the defect appears within one year of delivery (\u00a7 477 (1) sentence 1 BGB). The presumption also covers the point that the cause was already present at delivery (BGH, judgment of 12 October 2016, VIII ZR 103\/15). The dealer must rebut the presumption in full, merely shaking it is not enough.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>May I clear the fault memory or have defective parts replaced?<\/strong><br>Not without securing the evidence first. Anyone who culpably destroys evidence risks evidential relief for the dealer up to a reversal of the burden of proof (BGH, judgment of 23 November 2005, VIII ZR 43\/05). Have the fault memory read out before any intervention, keep removed parts and photograph the condition with a date.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>I live in Poland and bought the car in Germany. Can you handle the case?<\/strong><br>Yes. We conduct warranty proceedings against German dealers in German and Polish, correspondence with the dealer and the court is electronic, and you can send us your documents online.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <p style=\"font-size:.85rem;color:var(--ink-soft)\">Basis: LG Frankfurt am Main, judgment of 6 March 2025, 2-12 O 32\/24 (BeckRS 2025, 41934), appeal dismissed by OLG Frankfurt am Main, order of 11 December 2025, 9 U 44\/25 (leave to appeal refused). This article is for information only and is no substitute for advice in an individual case.<\/p>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"mini-cta rv\"><b>Bought a defective car in Germany and the dealer is playing for time?<\/b><span style=\"color:var(--ink-soft);font-size:.92rem\">Send us the contract, the notice of defect and your photographs \u2014 we set the deadlines, secure the evidence and quantify the claim so that the cost risk stays under control. In German and Polish.<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/defective-car-from-germany\/#kontakt\" class=\"btn\">Send documents for review <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a><\/div>\r\n    <div class=\"prose rv\" style=\"margin-top:1.5rem\">\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.1rem\">Related topics<\/h3>\r\n      <div class=\"chips\" style=\"margin-top:.8rem\">\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/car-from-germany-broke-down-after-purchase\/\">Car from Germany broke down after purchase \u2014 burden of proof \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/defective-car-germany-transport-costs\/\">Defective car from Germany \u2014 transport costs \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/car-purchase-rescission-germany\/\">Car purchase rescission in Germany \u2014 the refund maths \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/defective-car-from-germany\/\">Defective car bought in Germany \u2014 your rights \u2192<\/a>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/article>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"sec alt\">\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <div class=\"lawyer rv\">\r\n      <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/dr-artur-barczewski.webp\" alt=\"Dr. Artur Barczewski \u2013 author of the article\" loading=\"lazy\">\r\n      <div>\r\n        <b>Dr. Artur Barczewski<\/b>\r\n        <div class=\"role\">Rechtsanwalt \u00b7 attorney-at-law<\/div>\r\n        <p>Author of this article. Represents clients before courts across Germany. <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/team\/artur-barczewski\/\">Meet the author \u2192<\/a><\/p>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"cta-end\">\r\n  <div class=\"glow\"><\/div>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <span class=\"eyebrow rv\">Contact<\/span>\r\n    <h2 class=\"rv d1\">Does your situation look similar?<\/h2>\r\n    <p class=\"rv d2\">Every case has details that change the outcome. Describe yours \u2014 you will receive a concrete answer and a fee overview.<\/p>\r\n    <div class=\"row rv d3\">\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/defective-car-from-germany\/#kontakt\" class=\"btn\">Describe your case <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"tel:+4933555310969\" class=\"phone\">\u260e +49 335 553 10969<\/a>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n\r\n<footer>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <div class=\"foot-grid\">\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-brand\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/logo-bw.png\" alt=\"BWLAW logo\" width=\"38\" height=\"26\"><\/div>\r\n        <p>Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski &amp; Dr. Wr\u00f3blewska GbR<br>Rudolf-Breitscheid-Stra\u00dfe 10<br>15230 Frankfurt (Oder), Germany<br><a href=\"tel:+4933555310969\">+49 335 553 10969<\/a> \u00b7 <a href=\"mailto:info@bwlaw.de\">info@bwlaw.de<\/a><\/p>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-h\">Practice areas<\/div>\r\n        <ul>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/\">Construction law \/ VOB\/B<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/employment-law\/\">Employment law<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/debt-collection\/\">Debt collection<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/company-formation\/\">Corporate law<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"\/en\/defective-car-from-germany\/\">Defective car from Germany<\/a><\/li>\r\n        <\/ul>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-h\">Legal<\/div>\r\n        <ul>\r\n          <li><a href=\"\/en\/\">Home<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/\">Knowledge base<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/impressum\/\">Legal notice (Impressum)<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/privacy-policy\/\">Privacy policy<\/a><\/li>\r\n        <\/ul>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n    <div class=\"foot-bottom\">\r\n      <span>\u00a9 2026 BWLAW \u00b7 Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski &amp; Dr. Wr\u00f3blewska GbR<\/span>\r\n      <span>Rechtsanw\u00e4lte \u00b7 attorneys-at-law \u00b7 Frankfurt (Oder)<\/span>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/footer>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"sticky-cta\">\r\n  <a href=\"tel:+4933555310969\" class=\"call\">\u260e Call us<\/a>\r\n  <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/defective-car-from-germany\/#kontakt\" class=\"book\">Describe your case<\/a>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\r\n{\r\n  \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\r\n  \"@graph\": [\r\n    {\r\n      \"@type\": \"Article\",\r\n      \"headline\": \"Used car dealer refuses repair in Germany: how the buyer recovered \u20ac7,535.57 for the repair \u2014 and why driving the defective car cost him the loss-of-use claim\",\r\n      \"description\": \"LG Frankfurt (2-12 O 32\/24): dealer pays \u20ac7,535.57 repair costs, but the buyer who kept driving got \u20ac350 of \u20ac122,325 loss of use. Cost trap explained.\",\r\n      \"inLanguage\": \"en\",\r\n      \"author\": {\r\n        \"@type\": \"Person\",\r\n        \"name\": \"Dr. Artur Barczewski\",\r\n        \"url\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/team\/artur-barczewski\/\"\r\n      },\r\n      \"publisher\": {\r\n        \"@type\": \"LegalService\",\r\n        \"name\": \"BWLAW \u2013 Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski & Dr. Wr\u00f3blewska GbR\",\r\n        \"url\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/\"\r\n      },\r\n      \"datePublished\": \"2026-09-04\",\r\n      \"dateModified\": \"2026-09-04\",\r\n      \"mainEntityOfPage\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/used-car-dealer-refuses-repair-germany\/\"\r\n    },\r\n    {\r\n      \"@type\": \"FAQPage\",\r\n      \"mainEntity\": [\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"Do I get loss-of-use compensation if I keep driving the defective car?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": {\r\n            \"@type\": \"Answer\",\r\n            \"text\": \"No. Loss-of-use compensation requires a tangible economic disadvantage, and there is none if you actually use the vehicle as usual (LG Frankfurt am Main, 2-12 O 32\/24, confirmed by OLG Frankfurt am Main, 9 U 44\/25). The fact that you should not have been driving in law changes nothing. Only the days on which the car was actually unavailable, for instance in the workshop, are compensated.\"\r\n          }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"How much is loss-of-use compensation per day?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": {\r\n            \"@type\": \"Answer\",\r\n            \"text\": \"The courts estimate it as a lump sum from tables that sort vehicles into groups by type and age. In the Frankfurt case the daily rate for group L was \u20ac175. The rate applies, however, only to days on which you wanted to use the car, were able to use it and really went without it for want of a reasonable second car (BGH, judgment of 11 October 2022, VI ZR 35\/22).\"\r\n          }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"Does the dealer have to pay me an advance for the repair?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": {\r\n            \"@type\": \"Answer\",\r\n            \"text\": \"No. The advance on costs under \u00a7 637 (3) BGB exists only in the law of contracts for work. In the law of sales the dealer first has the right to repair (OLG Frankfurt am Main, order of 11 December 2025, 9 U 44\/25). Only after a deadline has expired without result (\u00a7 281 (1) BGB) or in the cases of \u00a7 475d BGB can you have the repair done yourself and claim the invoice as damages.\"\r\n          }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"Who has to prove that the defect was already there at the time of purchase?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": {\r\n            \"@type\": \"Answer\",\r\n            \"text\": \"When buying from a dealer, the dealer, if the defect appears within one year of delivery (\u00a7 477 (1) sentence 1 BGB). The presumption also covers the point that the cause was already present at delivery (BGH, judgment of 12 October 2016, VIII ZR 103\/15). The dealer must rebut the presumption in full, merely shaking it is not enough.\"\r\n          }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"May I clear the fault memory or have defective parts replaced?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": {\r\n            \"@type\": \"Answer\",\r\n            \"text\": \"Not without securing the evidence first. Anyone who culpably destroys evidence risks evidential relief for the dealer up to a reversal of the burden of proof (BGH, judgment of 23 November 2005, VIII ZR 43\/05). Have the fault memory read out before any intervention, keep removed parts and photograph the condition with a date.\"\r\n          }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"I live in Poland and bought the car in Germany. Can you handle the case?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": {\r\n            \"@type\": \"Answer\",\r\n            \"text\": \"Yes. We conduct warranty proceedings against German dealers in German and Polish, correspondence with the dealer and the court is electronic, and you can send us your documents online.\"\r\n          }\r\n        }\r\n      ]\r\n    }\r\n  ]\r\n}\r\n<\/script>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Construction law Debt collection Corporate law Employment law Cars Knowledge base Team EN DE PL Contact a lawyer \u2192 \u2630 Home\/Knowledge base\/Cars Cars Used car dealer refuses repair in Germany: how the buyer recovered \u20ac7,535.57 for the repair \u2014 and why driving the defective car cost him the loss-of-use claim A used car buyer claimed [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":4417,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"template-bwlaw-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":"","rank_math_title":"Dealer refuses repair in Germany: buyer wins \u20ac7,535 | BWLAW","rank_math_description":"LG Frankfurt (2-12 O 32\/24): dealer pays \u20ac7,535.57 repair costs, but the buyer who kept driving got \u20ac350 of \u20ac122,325 loss of use. Cost trap explained.","rank_math_focus_keyword":"used car dealer refuses repair in germany","rank_math_robots":[]},"class_list":["post-5212","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"bwlaw_import":{"lang":"en","template":"template-bwlaw-page.php"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5212","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5212"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5212\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4417"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}