My son, 7 years old, today stole 100 Euro from my daughter's savings and bought 4x 20 Euro tickets for the Playstation at the tank. Everything redeemed. Now we only noticed that tonight. The cards are only from 18. What does it look like legally? Do we have a chance to get the money reimbursed from the tank even though they are already used up? I mean you shouldn't have sold it to him at all?
Your son is of limited business capacity and the petrol station has to refund you the money. Even if the cards have already been redeemed.
Falls under the pocket money paragraph.
I also think that these cards are all over 18.
"I mean you shouldn't have sold that to him at all?"
Correct. And even if the cards were not over 18, a seller with this amount must be puzzled at that age, since only transactions out of pocket money (and a monthly installment!) Are automatically "approved" by the legal guardians. It should have been clear that a 7-year-old had no permission to buy game credits for 100 euro.
You can reclaim the money even if the cards have already been redeemed.
Then the petrol station is obliged to cancel the purchase.
Yeah right.
The credit cards are not over 18, that's just an unofficial statement from Sony.
Falls under the pocket money paragraph.
Complete nonsense. Read and understand https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/...__110.html.
the petrol station has to refund you the money.
What now?
Therefore the note "Even if the cards were not over 18";) But this is not an unofficial statement, by the way, this is a fixed requirement. It says AB 18 and not "if it doesn't bother and is okay then please from 18"
Yes it says on it from 18, but there's not somehow the fsk or usk behind it. It's like a schnapps burner writes on the schnapps from 25!
It also totally confused me
(a monthly rate!)
Where's that at?
Don't you have any other worries? Seven years old and steals the sister's saved? What kind of fruit is that? What is he stealing next? Maybe the car keys and go for a spin with the car?
If I were you, I would be very worried about taking the money away from the gas station attendant!
Absolutely no nonsense. The son may only buy goods within the scope of his pocket money. For a 7-year-old, you are guided by a monthly 8 euro. With a purchase of game credits worth 100 euro, the seller should have been taken aback. In addition, the cards are from 18.
Now what?
The statement was clear, what exactly do you not understand about it?
In Section 110 of the German Civil Code we read: "which have been given to him for this purpose or at his free disposal by the representative or, with his consent, by a third party."
And that is not the case!
It is not a "free disposal" and not "handed over by a third party" - but stolen by the sister.
Wrong addressee.
In Section 110 of the German Civil Code we read: "which have been given to him for this purpose or at his free disposal by the representative or, with his consent, by a third party."
Correct.
And that is not the case!
Correct.
It is not a "free disposal" and not "handed over by a third party" - but stolen by the sister.
You could even file a complaint because the seller sold a restricted item to a minor without age verification.
Yeah right.
The answer is absolute grouse because the user is not even able to give a coherent answer.
1. Does he still have no relation to money.
2. Has he already been punished?
3. Have you never screwed up as a child? That is part of it, you learn from mistakes.
4. The employees at the petrol station also have their responsibility, and that includes not selling young children that much for things over the age of 18.
You worry about 18, while your son stole money…
True words. Sure, it is a lot of money, but that should be less of a priority than his behavior
Sure, you messed up as a child, but you didn't steal it.
We know that too and agree with you completely. He is seven and still has a lot to learn. He knows it was a mistake and we talked a lot about it to him. But that's our business. But my question here is about the legal.
The answer is correct in every sentence. What do you tap into such untruths in the comments?
The answer is correct in every sentence. What do you tap into such untruths in the comments?
Are you all drunk
If the statement
Falls under the pocket money paragraph.
would be correct, the purchase contract would be effective. Then the statement
the petrol station has to refund you the money
This is the so-called 'pocket money paragraph', which states that children and young people who are only of limited legal capacity may only dispose of amounts if the transactions do not exceed the value of the typical pocket money of a month for the age group concerned.
and for a 7-year-old, 20 euro are already more than limit values … 100 euro are definitely - this is why this business is considered immoral and the petrol station operator has to reimburse the money
Wow i'm waiting for viragexo his answer.
This is the so-called 'pocket money paragraph' which states that children and adolescents are conditionally capable of doing business as long as the business does not exceed the value of the typical pocket money of a month for the age group concerned.
Why do you all comment here on paragraphs that you obviously never read?
Read, understand and be quiet https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/...__110.html.
and for a 7-year-old, 20 euro are already more than limit values … 100 euro are definitely - this is why this business is considered immoral and the petrol station operator has to reimburse the money
Dude… Let it be.
What? What is the offense?
You argue with the right sources, but you also know what's inside.
In Germany this applies according to this regulation
https://de.wikipedia.org/...ki/Vertrag, which is completed by a minor who has reached the age of 7, even without an express one
https://de.wikipedia.org/...Zustimmung of
https://de.wikipedia.org/..._Vertreter effective from the start (
https://de.wikipedia.org/...i/Ex_tunc), if the minor effects the contractual performance with funds,
which has been provided to him for this purpose or at his free disposal by the representative or, with his consent, by a third party (e.g. An aunt who makes a monetary gift to the minor with the consent of the parents) (so-called limited general consensus). The transfer of the
https://de.wikipedia.org/...ugendliche or any means (such as the provision of wages or things) for free disposal or for a specific purpose replaces the consent to the specific contract.
However, if parents expressly prohibit the purchase of certain goods, minors may not purchase them, even if they use their own money for this.
https://de.wikipedia.org/...ite_note-4
The term "pocket money paragraph" is too narrow insofar as its applicability is neither limited to pocket money nor to financial resources at all - for example, § 110 BGB also applies to barter transactions.
https://de.wikipedia.org/...ite_note-5
https://de.wikipedia.org/...ite_note-6
You argue with the right sources, but you also know what's inside.
What is with you? Are you arguing against yourself or what?
Do you mean your aggressiveness or your insults intimidate me?
I do not think so.
I'm neither aggressive nor offensive. Rather stunned.
Then be stunned in silence and use this time of silence to read the written…
I think Virage is one of the few on this question who doesn't have to read the above text.
If you think…
But my question here is about the legal.
Aha! The law must be enforced on the others. They should make sure that your face doesn't mess up. You obviously don't care that the gas station attendant has to pay this out of his own pocket. Doesn't matter, he earns so much anyway.
Perhaps it may be difficult for laypersons to recognize, but if you are here for a while you can see quite well who has received legal training and who has not. He is sometimes a bit flippant in his statements, but he is 99% right. The question dealt with here is so law material from the first semester, the answers were also correct that he has to go.
if people would saber less and try and read, this curd would not have to be repeated and corrected as often
That may be, but I do not know what should be wrong with my statement?
it was not his money, he was not allowed, and apart from that, 100 euro exceeded the budget of a 7 year old
It is wrong that there's no limit. It always results from the funds made available. If grandma gives the little one 500 euro and says have a lot of fun with what you want, he can also buy sweets or books for 500 euro 🤷♂️
that a salesperson is puzzled, but there's no legal basis for it
And I would be willing to bet that no dealer would sell anything to a seven-year-old for 500 euro if he wanted to do the business without an adult
send a 14-year-old to the Media Markt and let him buy a cell phone… I have noticed several times that the cashiers are asking for ID and are not selling the device
What you are saying may be practice, but the legal situation is different and that is what this is about.
Correct!
and since the boy took the money illegally and because the parents did not agree to it, the trade is immoral
the seller should have asked for a declaration of consent from the parents - he didn't, so the case is clear…
And now you're back on the wrong steamer.
where was the sales contract immoral? Nowhere (read 935 I and II BGB)
the whole thing with the agreement is correct, since it was not his pocket money should have been asked. The contract is currently pending ineffective.
As a consequence that the gas station attendant will have to refund the money…
That might be different for a 12 or 14 year old, but the situation is obvious for a 7 year old…
Whether 7 or 17 makes no legal difference
I think a judge will decide differently for a 17 year old than for a 7 year old
No he would not, otherwise he would be guilty of legal inflection
If you mean… But I see it differently… Because in that case the said 'pocket money paragraph' is applied
ubd because a law degree is not the license for 'being right' even with fully qualified lawyers, there are courts and judges, and even in different instances…
and that's why I'm out of here because you can't find a common denominator…
The pocket money paragraph is not currently being applied here🤷♂️ As you said above, it is not the means of that.
Lawyers are arguing about some things, but it does not guarantee whether a clear regulation in the law should be read differently. If there's 7-17 of limited legal capacity then that is so
It is completely incomprehensible to me how the colleague, with the stubbornness of a flat geek, maintains completely wrongly wrong legal opinions, although it has already been stated several times,
that and
Why
this view is wrong - and then complains if the other side has enough.
🤷♂️😂 btw flacherdler, do you know floplus on YouTube? You might like that
