Categories
Technology- & IT-Law

Contract for the subsequent installation of a delivered battery storage unit is generally classified as a purchase agreement with an installation obligation

In the judgment of the Saarland Higher Regional Court of Saarbrücken (Case No. 2 U 75/23), the court ruled that a contract for the subsequent installation of a delivered battery storage unit is generally classified as a purchase agreement with an installation obligation, rather than a contract for work. This distinction significantly impacts the rights and obligations of the contracting parties as well as the statute of limitations for warranty claims.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff had entered into a contract with the defendant for the delivery and installation of an energy storage system. The contract included the option to expand the system’s capacity, which the plaintiff later wished to utilize. However, the defendant refused to carry out the expansion, stating that such an upgrade was only possible within one year of the initial commissioning. Consequently, the plaintiff declared a withdrawal from the contract and demanded a refund, as well as compensation. The Saarbrücken Regional Court considered the contract as a contract for work and ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant then appealed against this decision.

Legal Analysis

Differentiation: Purchase Agreement with Installation Obligation vs. Contract for Work

The Saarland Higher Regional Court addressed the question of whether the contract should be classified as a contract for work or a purchase agreement with an installation obligation. According to case law, the decisive factor is which aspect of the contract is dominant: the transfer of the item (purchase agreement) or the achievement of a specific result (contract for work).

  • Supply Contract: Such a contract exists when the primary obligation is the delivery of a movable item that must be manufactured or produced. If the contract also includes installation, the relationship between supply and installation is crucial.
  • Purchase Agreement with Installation Obligation: The court considers it a purchase agreement with an installation obligation when the installation is merely a subsidiary obligation in relation to the supply. Key factors include the proportion of material costs to installation costs and the degree of customization required.

Court’s Assessment

The court ruled that the contract concerning the energy storage unit primarily involved the delivery of a standard battery storage product, which was merely installed through simple connection work. The overall picture of the contract showed that the installation was of minor significance since the battery storage was a standard product, and the work mainly involved connecting it to the existing system. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has similarly held in comparable cases (such as solar panels) that such contracts typically constitute purchase agreements, as long as no extensive planning services or customized adjustments are necessary.

Statute of Limitations

Based on this classification, the two-year statute of limitations under § 438 (1) No. 3 BGB for purchase contracts was applicable. As the delivery of the battery storage unit took place in 2017 and the plaintiff did not file suit until 2021, the claims were time-barred under § 214 BGB. The five-year limitation period under § 438 (1) No. 2 BGB, which applies to buildings or components essential to their existence, did not apply in this case. The court found that the energy storage unit was not permanently attached to the building, nor was it essential to the building’s usability.

Conclusion

The Saarland Higher Regional Court of Saarbrücken overturned the judgment of the Regional Court and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. The classification of the contract as a purchase agreement with an installation obligation meant that the two-year limitation period had already expired. Therefore, the plaintiff’s withdrawal from the contract was invalid.

Summary

This ruling illustrates that a comprehensive assessment is necessary when distinguishing between a purchase agreement with an installation obligation and a contract for work. Factors such as the type of product, the proportion of supply to installation costs, and the degree of customization are essential criteria. This has far-reaching implications for limitation periods and, thus, the rights of contracting parties.

German Lawyer Jens Ferner (Criminal Defense & IT-Law)
Latest posts by German Lawyer Jens Ferner (Criminal Defense & IT-Law) (see all)