Unzumutbarkeit des Festhaltens an d

Unzumutbarkeit des Festhaltens an der vertraglichen Bindung
Voraussetzung für die Anpassung des Vertrages oder seine Kündigung ist die Unzumutbarkeit des Festhaltens an der ursprünglichen vertraglichen Regelung. Für die Frage der Zumutbarkeit ist allein die Interessenlage der Vertragspartner maßgebend. Es gibt keinerlei Anhaltspunkte dafür, daß der Gesetzgeber den privaten Vertragspartner für eine besondere Berücksichtigung des öffentlichen Interesses in die Pflicht nehmen wollte. Aber auch auf Seiten des öffentlichen Vertragspartners wird die Zumutbarkeit nicht durch öffentlichrechtliche Grundsätze bestimmt. die nicht auf den Vertrag bezogen sind. Deshalb kann auch nicht auf die Maßstäbe zurückgegriffen warden, die für die Aufhebung von Verwaltungsakten und die Wiegeraufnahme des Verfahrens gelten. Diese Regelungen berücksichtigen nicht, daß die vertragliche Bindung einen besonderen Vertrauenstatbestand schafft, der demjenigen einseitig-hoheitlichen Handeln nicht gleichzusetzen ist.
Unzumutbarkeit ist deshalb erst dann anzunehmen, wenn für einen der Vertragspartner die vertragliche Bindung nach Treu und Glauben zu einem mit Recht und Gerechtigkeit unvereinbaren Ergebnis führt. Eine derartige Sachlage ist anzunehmen im Fall schwerwiegender Äquivalenzstörungen. Maßgeblich ist die vertraglich voraunsgesetze Risikoverteilung. Realisieren sich Risiken, die vertragstypisch sind oder die einer der Vertragspartner zu vertreten hat, ist das Festhalten am Vertrag regelmäßig nicht unzumutbar. Nach diesen Maßgaben begründen etwa Ablösungssummen für Erschließungsbeiträge, die über dem späteren Beitragssatzung ligen, keine Unzumutbarkeit der vertraglichen Bindung. Es entspricht gerade dem “ablösetypischen Risiko”, daßder für die Ablösung errechnete Beitrag die endgültige Beitragsabrechnung über-oder unterscherschreitet. Eine die Unzumutbarkeit umschreibende Mißbilligungsgrenze will deshalb das Bundesverwaltunsgericht erst bei einer Verdoppelung oder entsprechend bei einer Unterschreitung um mehr als die Hälfte annehmen. Entsprechendes gilt, wenn sich ein Investor entschließt, in der Hoffnung eines Bebauungsplan Straßenbauarbeiten vorzufinanzieren. Ist beiden Parteien das Risiko des Scheiternsbekannt. so läßt die hohe Gewinnerwartung des Privaten und sein Zeitgewinn eine einseitige vertragliche Risikoverteiling durchaus zu.
Auch bei Dauerschuldverhältnissen mit beträchtlicher Laufzeit entscheidet zuvörderst die im Vertrag selbst angelegte Risikoverteilung. Wer langfristige Bindungen einght, gewinnt Stabilität . Er trägt aber grundsätzlich auch das Risiko, daßsich wirtschaftliche oder sonstige Erwartungen an den Vertrag nicht dauerhaft und durchgängig erfüllen. Die “Opfergrenze” ist erst dann überschritten, wenn die Interessen des betroffenen Vertragspartners überhaupt nicht mehr gewahrt warden.

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 1:

Unreasonableness of the adherence to the contract binding Prerequisite for the adaptation of the agreement or its termination is the unreasonableness of the adherence to the original contractual arrangements. Solely the interests of the contractual partner is decisive for the question of reasonableness. There is no evidence to suggest that the legislature wanted to take the private parties for special consideration of the public interest in the obligation. But also on pages of the public contract partner, the reasonableness is not determined by public law principles. you are not related to the Treaty. Therefore may also not on the standards resorted be, applied for the annulment of administrative acts and the Wiegeraufnahme of the procedure. These regulations do not consider that the contractual arrangements creates a particular faith facts, does not equate the unilateral Government action is. Unreasonableness is therefore only then to think if one contract partner contractual binding produces an result incompatible with law and justice in good faith. A such State of affairs is to assume in case of serious disturbances of equivalence. Contractually voraunsgesetze risk diversification is crucial. Risks that are typical to the contract or which one of the parties responsible, realized the adherence to the contract is regularly not unreasonable. Accordance with these stipulations about detachment sums for development posts establish on the later post statute leagues, no unreasonable contractual binding. It corresponds to the final settlement of post about - just the "transfer-typical risk", the contribution calculated for the replacement or unterscherschreitet. A disapproval limit write to the unreasonableness will therefore accept the Federal shipping Wal do Court at a doubling or accordingly where the shortfall by more than half. The same applies if an investor decides to finance in advance in the hope of a development plan for road construction. Is the risk of Scheiternsbekannt bipartisan. the high expectation of privacy and its time-saving way to quite a one-sided contractual Risikoverteiling. Also at the continuing obligations with considerable maturity risk allocation specified in the Treaty itself decides primarily. Who einght long-term commitments, gaining stability. He wears but also the risk that economic or other expectations of the contract not permanently and consistently meet. The "victim"border is only exceeded when the interests of the affected Party are no longer maintained.

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 2:

Unacceptability of adhering to the contractual obligation
prerequisite for the adaptation of the contract or its termination is the unacceptability of holding on to the original contractual agreement. For the question of reasonableness alone the interests of the contracting parties shall prevail. There is no evidence that the legislature intended to take the private contractor for special consideration of the public interest in the duty. But the reasonableness and on the part of the public contracting party is not determined by public law principles. which are not related to the Treaty. Why can not warden resorted to the standards that apply to the annulment of administrative acts and the weighing receptacle of the process. These regulations do not consider that the contractual obligations creates a special situation of trust, of the one side-sovereign action can not be equated.
unreasonableness is therefore only then be assumed if the contractual obligations in good faith to a disparate for one of the parties with Law and Justice leading results. Such a situation is likely in case of serious disturbances equivalence. Decisive is the contractually voraunsgesetze risk diversification. Be realized risks that are typical for the contract or one of the parties is responsible for the adherence to the contract is regularly not unreasonable. According to these stipulations constitute about detachment sums for local improvement, the time on the later post Statutes, no unreasonableness of contractual commitment. It corresponds exactly to the "typical transfer risk" thatthe for the replacement contribution calculated the final contribution accounting under shear proceeds over-or. A circumscribing the unacceptability Mißbilligungsgrenze will therefore accept the Bundesverwaltunsgericht only with a doubling or equivalent at a deficit of more than half. The same applies when an investor decides to pre hoping a Zoning roadworks. If both parties the risk of failure known. so can the high profit expectation of privacy and its time saving one-sided contractual Risikoverteiling quite to.
Even with continuous obligations with considerable maturity decide first of all applied in the treaty itself risk diversification. Who einght long-term bonds, gaining stability. However, it takes basically also the risk of not meeting thatthe economic or other expectations of the contract permanently and consistently. The "victim limit" is only exceeded if the interests of the contractor concerned warden no longer safeguarded.

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 3:

Unreasonableness of adherence to the contractual
prerequisite for the adaptation of the Agreement or its termination is the unreasonableness of adherence to the original contractual arrangements. For the question of reasonableness is solely the interests of the Contracting Parties shall prevail. There is absolutely no evidence,The fact that the legislator private contractors for special consideration of the public interest in the duty wanted to take. But also on the part of the public contracting party is not the acceptability by a public law principles. Not on the Treaty. That is why can also not be used on the standards,The for the abolition of administrative acts and the Wiegeraufnahme of the proceedings. These rules do not take into account that the contractual commitment creates a special legitimate expectations that one-sided-sovereign act is not to be equated.
unreasonableness is therefore only then accept,If one of the parties in good faith the contractual obligation to a incompatible with justice and righteousness. Such a situation is to be expected in the event of serious Äquivalenzstorungen. Decisive is the contractually voraunsgesetze risk-sharing. Realized risks,The event or the one of the contracting parties are to represent, is the adherence to the contract has not unreasonable regularly. To justify these conditions about Ablosungssummen for Erschließungsbeitrage, the above the later Fees Ordinance leagues, no unreasonableness of contractual commitment. It corresponds to the "ablosetypischen risk",Provided he respects the contribution calculated for the replacement final contribution accounting for associations on-or unterscherschreitet. The unreasonableness Mißbilligungsgrenze therefore wants a outlining the Bundesverwaltunsgericht only at a doubling or mutatis mutandis in the event of shortfall is more than half. The same applies, if an investor decides toPre-finance road works in the hope of a development plan. The risk of the Scheiternsbekannt is both parties, and thus the high expectations of the private and his time to a one-sided contractual Risikoverteiling.
and recurring obligations with significant duration in the Treaty itself decides the foremost created risk-sharing.Long-term ties einght who wins stability . But it does help in principle and also the risk daßsich economic or other expectations of the Treaty does not permanently and consistently satisfy. The "Sacrifice" is exceeded only if the interests of the Contracting Party concerned no longer provided warden.