Silence in the sup­p­ly rela­ti­on (not) a ground for termination?

In the long-standing dis­pu­te bet­ween VW and for­mer sup­pli­er Pre­vent, the Hig­her Regio­nal Court of Cel­le has set the dis­pu­te on a new cour­se with its jud­ge­ment of 8 Decem­ber 2020 – Case 13 U 65/19 (Kart) (only in German).

The ruling was based on the fol­lo­wing: the auto­mo­ti­ve sup­pli­er Pre­vent deman­ded a 25% pri­ce increase from VW for the pro­ducts it sup­pli­ed. After VW tried in vain to find out from Pre­vent what con­se­quen­ces could be expec­ted if this demand was rejec­ted, VW first agreed to the pri­ce adjus­t­ment and then ter­mi­na­ted the con­trac­tu­al rela­ti­on after a few months. To date, VW has most­ly been suc­cessful in court, most recent­ly befo­re the Hig­her Regio­nal Court of Düs­sel­dorf (Judgment of 5 Febru­ary 2020 – Case U (Kart) 4/19) (only in Ger­man), which con­side­red the extra­or­di­na­ry ter­mi­na­ti­on pro­no­un­ced by VW after such a pri­ce increase to be lawful.

Befo­re the Hig­her Regio­nal Court of Cel­le, VW wan­ted the vali­di­ty of the ter­mi­na­ti­on against TWB, a sub­si­dia­ry of Pre­vent, to be con­firm­ed. Howe­ver, con­tra­ry to what pre­vious rulings in the mat­ter had sug­gested, the Hig­her Regio­nal Court of Cel­le held that VW’s uni­la­te­ral ter­mi­na­ti­on was unlawful.

On extra­or­di­na­ry ter­mi­na­ti­on: Silence in the sup­p­ly rela­ti­on (not) good cause?

Accor­ding to the Hig­her Regio­nal Court of Cel­le, extra­or­di­na­ry ter­mi­na­ti­on is inva­lid. This would have requi­red good cau­se in the terms of § 314 of the Civil Code, which is not the case here. In doing so, the Hig­her Regio­nal Court sta­tes – in con­trast to the Hig­her Regio­nal Court of Düs­sel­dorf – that good cau­se can in par­ti­cu­lar not be seen in the silence by Pre­vent. This does not con­sti­tu­te an impli­ed thre­at to stop deli­veries in the event VW fails to accept a pri­ce increase request.

No right of rou­ti­ne termination

The­re was also no right of rou­ti­ne ter­mi­na­ti­on. Such a right does not ari­se eit­her from the frame­work sup­p­ly agree­ment or from the other con­tents of the con­tract; to the con­tra­ry, a right of rou­ti­ne ter­mi­na­ti­on is pre­cis­e­ly excluded by Sec­tion 2.1.1 of the Spe­ci­fi­ca­ti­ons. Accor­din­gly, an under­stan­ding bet­ween the par­ties, i.e. an agree­ment, is requi­red for the pre­ma­tu­re ces­sa­ti­on of the con­trac­tu­al rela­ti­on. In the view of the Hig­her Regio­nal Court of Cel­le, this also results from the inte­rests of the par­ties expres­sed in the nomi­na­ti­on letter.

Com­pen­sa­ti­on and outlook

In respon­se to the cross com­plaint filed by the Pre­vent sub­si­dia­ry, the Hig­her Regio­nal Court of Cel­le also ruled that VW must pay it dama­ge compensation.

It remains to be seen whe­ther the ruling of the Hig­her Regio­nal Court of Cel­le as a pre­ce­dent (supplier-friendly) case will have an impact on ongo­ing and future proceedings.


Stay up-to-date

We use your email address exclusively for sending our newsletter. You have the right to revoke your consent at any time with effect for the future. For further information, please refer to our privacy policy.