I have the following question,
Some time ago I accidentally damaged the notebook of a friend, at the time a good friend, by a water damage and rendered inoperative. She had bought it just under 10 months ago for around 900 euro and I replaced it with a similarly strong notebook 2 months ago for 640 euro. At that time we had made it orally, that we sell the broken part on the Internet to hobbyists and thus the total cost for me to sink.
Now, after an unfortunate argument (which has nothing to do with the notebook), we broke off the friendship. After I backed up their data and formatted the hard drive to 0, I saw it in my right to keep the part, since I replaced their damage and they were satisfied with the purchase of the new notebook. It no longer has any use for the old part. Then she has her sister who studied law, addressed to this situation, whereupon this meant that according to the claim for release under paragraph 985, gem. Paragraph 823 BGB and Paragraph 245 of the Criminal Code she was right and I could potentially go to jail for up to 3 years.
Since I do not know the laws, I wanted to ask you if this is all right thing and there are paragraphs or laws that see the right of possession with me. Since a kinship is involved, I can easily imagine a one-sided jurisdiction.
You wanted to sell it TOGETHER. Now you keep it for yourself. Thus you do not fulfill the contract. However, since embezzlement is a criminal offense, it is silly. But the sister is still studying; -)
If I'm informed correctly replacement of the damaged thing must be made only against assignment of the claims of the owner, she has a claim for release under 255 BGB against the former property, so that it should be prevented that the injured party is enriched unjustifiably
Thanks for looking out, but I have already looked at these paragraphs. I just do not know if the damage is in my possession now, if I have replaced it in itself.
Does that mean that I have to replace this only when she gives her claims from the notebook and thus the property?
§ 255 BGB speaks of assignment of claims from the property, but not an assignment of property. Would mean that the owner can't repeatedly claim compensation from the same damage (I would now read from the paragraph, have dealt with this far not intensively and I'm not a professional)
That's exactly how it is, read the 255 BGB, it says s
