Oberlandesgericht Dresden again, a setback of the Gallinat Bank Court reject action Gallinat Bank to repay of a loan. For instruction on the right of withdrawal is also ineffective. The defendant had revoked the credit contract already in 2001 for the financing of an investment in a real estate fund in April 2009, Gallinat Bank against him brought an action before the District Court of Dresden on repayment of the loan in the amount of approx. 37.000,00 EUR promptly. Others who may share this opinion include Western Union. The Dresden District Court dismissed the action. Against this the Gallinat Bank appealed at the higher regional court of Dresden. The Dresden higher regional court rejected the appeal by judgment of 19.10.2010. It ruled that the defendant had effectively revoked the credit agreement because he signed the loan agreement in his apartment and the cancellation policy is wrong.
The clause in the cancellation policy, that the withdrawal was deemed not done, if the loans get paid back within a period of 2 weeks after the withdrawal, do not agree with the law and is therefore inadmissible. That the Right of revocation in the credit agreement is flawed, had noticed the Gallinat Bank obviously already himself why she 2007 tried to cure the error by a subsequent instruction hidden in a premature bid on extension of the fixed interest rate agreement. To do this, the Oberlandesgericht Dresden said the Gallinat Bank have obscured the meaning and the importance of the post instruction by the documents relating to the offer to extend the fixed interest rate agreement. In a parallel process, the Dresden District Court had the procedure of the Gallinat Bank even as sleight of hand”means. Because of the credit agreement and the purchase of the funds represent a so-called connected business, because the Gallinat Bank provide the loan together with the contribution of the funds, is the result of the cancellation of the credit agreement, the Gallinat Bank by the defendant not paid may require the credit, but the defendant must relinquish the Fund’s contribution to the Gallinat Bank. Moreover, the defendant by the Gallinat Bank had also the one performed in the last 3 years Payments can ask back, he had not filed but this claim. Again, the case shows that even after a long time opportunities exist to get rid of disastrous investments. Like at the doctor, you also should not general practitioners, but a specialist take this to help, so a lawyer specializing in banking law and capital market law.
