Compensation for Vehicle Depreciation – § 357a BGB in Practice

In our article “§ 357a BGB und die Wertminderung von Fahrzeugen – Dogmatik und Praxis”, published in the legal journal RAW, we examine the consumer’s obligation to compensate for depreciation after withdrawal in distance sales of motor vehicles – a topic of considerable practical relevance in the online car market.

Withdrawal, compensation and the automotive sector

The right of withdrawal in distance contracts is shaped by EU law and is intended to give consumers an effective opportunity to inspect the goods. § 357a BGB establishes a standalone compensation regime that balances consumer interests with the protection of businesses against unjustified loss of value.

In the automotive sector, two questions are of particular importance:

• Which type of use still qualifies as permissible inspection?
• How can depreciation – for example due to first registration – be assessed in a legally robust manner?

Drawing on the case law of the CJEU and the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), we outline the boundary between permissible inspection and use that triggers compensation: in distance sales of vehicles, the scope of inspection is aligned with what is available in brick‑and‑mortar dealerships. Viewing the vehicle, using the controls and a short test drive are considered permissible inspection.

First registration and 20% depreciation

A central focus of our article is the first registration of new vehicles. It is neither required nor typical for mere inspection and thus exceeds the limits of the consumer’s inspection privilege.

• First registration changes the vehicle’s market status from “new” to “used” and leads to considerable depreciation, irrespective of mileage.
• Courts and legal literature accept a flat-rate depreciation of around 20% of the gross dealer retail price. This difference in value gives rise to a compensation claim by the business, which is determined by the courts on the basis of an estimate under § 287 ZPO.

Clear guardrails for the online car market

Our analysis shows that § 357a BGB, in light of the case law of the CJEU and the BGH, provides reliable guardrails for withdrawal cases in distance sales of vehicles. This creates a high degree of legal certainty for contract drafting, withdrawal processes and litigation in the online car market. You can access the full RAW article here.

Click here to read the full article