Federal Court to claim compensation for Tarot Der III. Zivilsenat des Bundesgerichtshofs hat über die Frage entschieden, ob und unter welchen Voraussetzungen ein Anspruch auf Vergütung für eine Leistung, die unter Einsatz übernatürlicher, magischer Kräfte und Fähigkeiten erbracht werden soll (hier: Lebensberatung in Verbindung mit Kartenlegen), besteht.
Dem Streitfall lag folgender Sachverhalt zugrunde:
Die Klägerin ist als Selbständige mit Gewerbeanmeldung tätig und bietet Lebensberatung ("life coaching"), wobei sie ihre Ratschläge anhand der durch Kartenlegen gewonnenen Erkenntnisse erteilt. In einer durch Beziehungsprobleme ausgelösten Lebenskrise stieß der Beklagte im September 2007 auf die Klägerin. In Subsequently, she put him on the phone in many cases different - personal and work - life issues the cards and gave advice. For this guarantee, the defendant in 2008, more than 35,000 €. For services rendered in January 2009 requires the applicant in its application € 6,723.50. The lawsuit is still in two lower courts without success. District Court and State Supreme Court have denied the alleged claim for compensation on the grounds that promised by the applicant's performance focused on the use of supernatural, magical powers and abilities and thus objective was impossible, so that the entitlement to compensation (pay) in accordance with § 326 para 1 * 1 BGB, § 275 paragraph 1 BGB ** no loss. The
III. Civil Division of the Federal Court initially approved the adoption of the courts below that promised by the applicant's performance is objectively impossible. A performance is objectively impossible, if they follow the laws of nature or the prior knowledge of science and technology per se can not be provided. So it is with the promise of the use of supernatural, magical or psychic powers and abilities.
However, it follows from the objective impossibility of the promised performance is not necessarily the case that the compensation claim is void of the applicant under § 326 para 1 sentence 1 BGB *. The Parties may, in the context of freedom of contract and in recognition of their personal responsibility agreement effective that a side - for a fee - an obligation to provide benefits to their bases and effects according to the findings of science and technology are not proved, but only an inner belief , a faith that effect or an irrational, incomprehensible match for third position. "Paid for" someone such services in the awareness that the appropriateness and suitability of these services to achieve the desired success, it can not be explained rationally, it would be content and purpose of the Treaty and the motives and ideas of the Parties disagree, to deny the compensation claim of indentured. In the circumstances of the case lies the assumption is not far away that the applicant according to the will of the parties was entitled to the remuneration agreed despite the fact that the "suitability" of the service rendered rationally can not be verified.
The Federal Court remanded the case to the appellate court to clarify whether such was the will of parties, but also to answer the question so far left open whether the agreement of the parties under § 138 BGB for immorality *** void. In this connection it must not be forgotten that many people, the kind Into contracts, in a difficult life situation or it is them to gullible, inexperienced, or mentally unstable people. Therefore, in such cases does not have high requirements 138 para 1 BGB is expected of a violation of good morals within the meaning of §.
Case of 13 January 2011 - III ZR 87/10
Stuttgart Regional Court - Case of 9 October 2009 - 19 O 101/09
Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart - Case of 8 April 2010 - 7 U 191/09
Karlsruhe, 13 January 2011
* § 326 para 1 sentence 1 (clause 1) BGB:
Does the debtor under § 275 paragraphs 1 to 3 not to afford entfällt der Anspruch auf die Gegenleistung; (…).
** § 275 Abs. 1 BGB:
Der Anspruch auf Leistung ist ausgeschlossen, soweit diese für den Schuldner oder für jedermann unmöglich ist.
*** § 138 BGB:
Ein Rechtsgeschäft, das gegen die guten Sitten verstößt, ist nichtig.
Nichtig ist insbesondere ein Rechtsgeschäft, durch das jemand unter Ausbeutung der Zwangslage, der Unerfahrenheit, des Mangels an Urteilsvermögen oder der erheblichen Willensschwäche eines anderen sich oder einem Dritten für die Leistung Vermögensvorteile versprechen oder gewähren lässt, die in einem auffälligen Missverhältnis are at the service.
press office of the Federal
76 125 Karlsruhe
Telephone (0721) 159-5013 Fax
(0721) 159-5501
The small summary in between! Who can rattle off the film's content "Dazed and Confused" by Richard Linklater complete in two minutes? 
Truffaut and Godard 
