Best Pinewood Derby Design Templates

Traffic Law - fictional account of advice from base - UPE surcharges recoverable (AG Berlin-Mitte)

After a traffic accident, the victim can choose whether his claims against the opponent's motor vehicle liability insurance on the basis of accumulated repair costs (filing of the workshop account) or expert basis (so-called "fictitious damage calculation") settles. The latter is of particular interest be if the injured party can eliminate the damage cost in their own work or with the help of friends self / wants.

The "fictitious claims settlement" instructed the victim to a vehicle-usually experts to prepare a damage report. The car experts would then calculate the amount of damages based on the known usual workshop prices in the region, is asking at what price a workshop carried out the repair. The calculation includes the expected time of work and the hourly rate of the workshop. In addition, the costs will be exchanged for replacement parts.

Unfortunately, it comes from This "fictitious damage calculation" but often conflict with the enemy vehicle liability insurance policy on the amount of recoverable damages. This represented, for example, then the opinion of the experts had assumed too high hourly rates
and also the spare parts could be cheaper to buy. The insurers argue, for example, the repair could have been held in a manufacturer-authorized repair achieved more cheaply in a "free" car repair workshop. Such "free" workshop make repairs usually at much lower hourly rates than by the service station. Not infrequently there are also for the spare parts do not "mark-UPE (UPE -" retail price "of the manufacturer) was calculated.

is from a legal point of view, therefore, first, the question is whether to put in the "constructive damage calculation on the hourly rate of service station or on the prices of the" free "workshop. For spare parts prices, the calculation is to be based is, the question of whether regional workshops are to be included in contract UPE usual bonuses in the calculation of damages.

While the first question in any event held in this respect the supreme court is that of calculating the hourly rates a "workshop" can be used, there is the question of the UPE-bonuses no uniform national law. The district court middle has now acknowledged in a recent decision (mid-AG 111 C 3246/06) the UPE-ups as part of the notional loss.

Conclusion:
At least in Berlin should not accept the victim of a reduction in vehicle damage reports calculated the amount of damage to the UPE-ups so without protest. Brought against the reduction made in any case has good prospects of success.

Communicated by lawyer Werner
(Source: NJW 529 f., 2008)

Mount And Blade My Blood Mod

Landmark court ruling on the accessibility of the investigative authorities to email Mail-Mailboxes

Communication by e-mail is now widespread and has happened in the last few years, the traditional letter traffic rank. Given the increased importance of communication is the question facing many, as ordered by the confidentiality of e-mail communications. Can "listen" for example, law enforcement and tax investigation of the e-mail traffic or to the retrieved e-mails easily access?

added to this question now, the Hamburg Regional Court made a landmark decision. In the this case to be decided was the prosecutor in an investigation because of the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs sought to access the e-mail accounts of several suspects in order to gain in this way evidence for criminal proceedings. The Hamburg Regional Court has allowed such access to the affected e-mail accounts eventually though. It has in its decision but noted that the retrieving Internet-based e-mail accounts (like web.de, gmx, hotmail) the constitutional protection of telecommunications and telecommunications secrecy is subject to, and therefore only subject to the strict requirements of § § 100a and 100b Code of Criminal Procedure is possible. These rules allow access to the investigative authorities only if it is under investigation for a serious crime, and the suspicion of a simple Tax evasion or any credit fraud does not suffice. Is different, in the opinion of the Court, however, for e-mail that referred to it by e-mail box and stored on your own computer, as in e-mail retrieval of so-called POP 3 - is the case, servers. Here, the court saw the scope of telecommunications secrecy and not open to allow access to the investigating authorities under the lower requirements of § § 98 et seq Code of Criminal Procedure, so that in particular the suspicion of a serious crime must exist.

Landgericht Hamburg, decision of 8 January 2008, 619 Q 1 / 08

lawyer Dr. Toralf Nöding
www.kanzlei-noeding.de