Software license agreement and insolvency of the licensor II

I have already explained the general principles and the problems that arise when a lease agreement exists in the event of the licensor's insolvency elsewhere. Here, the topic of "Insolvency of the licensor in the existence of a purchase agreement" still needs to be explained.

In the context of the sale of software - i.e. the final transfer of rights of use - the matter should actually be quite simple, but it is not. This is due to the fact that the existence of lawyers often entails the need for legal advice. You'll forgive me if I use somewhat derisive language in this context. But according to a minority view expressed in the literature, the concept of the final fulfillment of contractual obligations is extended to the extent that the insolvency administrator should have the right to refuse further fulfillment of the purchase agreement even if a purchase agreement exists. This would mean that the insolvency administrator could reclaim the purchase price for the software.

These views should be rejected. It is certainly true that purchase agreements for software also contain ancillary obligations such as non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements. If one assumes a very broad interpretation of § 103 InsO, this would mean that the contract is "not completely fulfilled" as long as the confidentiality and non-competition obligations exist. Since confidentiality and non-competition obligations can be effectively agreed for a period of 2 years after the end of the contract, this would mean that the contract could still be terminated by an insolvency administrator for 2 years. The only requirement would be that insolvency proceedings are opened against the buyer's assets within 2 years of the conclusion of the purchase agreement and the insolvency administrator refuses to fulfill the agreement. If this seems too abstract and theoretical for you, you should take a look at a decision by the Darmstadt Higher Labor Court from 2003, which rightly caused quite a stir in the legal literature.

The LAG Darmstadt assumed that the licensee's obligation to retain property right notices on the software was sufficient to reject complete performance. Again, in clear criticism of this decision, it must be said that sometimes - and not so rarely - the will of judges to make a certain decision anticipates the reasoning. Section 103 InsO deals with the fulfillment of so-called synallagmatic claims. These reciprocal claims should have to be fulfilled on a one-to-one basis. Typical for a purchase agreement are, for example, the synallagmatic obligations to pay the purchase price in return for the transfer of ownership of the item and its procurement. In the context of the purchase agreement for software, it is of course primarily a matter of the synallagmatic claims for the granting of rights of use for the payment of the purchase price. Ancillary claims that are not fulfilled by this synallagmatic obligation only lead to the possibility of claiming damages or reducing the purchase price in the event of non-fulfillment. However, they do not mean that the contract can be rescinded. This results from § 323 Para. 2 No. 5 BGB. Only the essential obligations arising from a purchase contract, which determine the give and take, are to be covered by § 103. Therefore, as long as the rights to use the software have not yet been granted in full, the preliminary contract has certainly not been fulfilled in full. In this respect, one should in all circumstances refrain from linking the transfer of the rights of use to any condition other than the full payment of the purchase price. The very cautious may consider including a clause in the general terms and conditions stating that the rights of use are transferred in full even if other ancillary obligations of the buyer have not been fulfilled in full.Basically, however, it remains the case that a purchase agreement is to be considered fully fulfilled when the purchase price has been paid and the rights of use have been granted completely and irrevocably. In this case, the insolvency administrator can no longer do anything.

More contributions

KI VO Stand 2024 Allgemeine Regelungen Teil IV Generische AI

Generische AI. 1.) Einteilung Eine weitere Klasse ist die sogenannte generische oder Allzweck- KI. Hier gibt es nun auch wieder 2 Klassen, nämlich erstens die generische AI mit systemischem Risiko; und die generische AI ohne systemisches Risiko. Chat GPT wäre

KI VO Stand 2024 Allgemeine Regelungen Teil III

Anwendungsbereich Das Erste, was man prüfen muss, wenn man im öfffentlichen Recht arbeitet: Wer ist Adressat, auf welchem Territorium gilt die AI-VO, was ist der objektive Tatbestand? Was ist ein KI System? Adressat: Nach Art 3 II: Die Provider sind

KI-Verordnung – Ein Überblick

Überblick dieses Blogs KI-Verordnung – ein Überblick Die EU hat es sich zur Aufgabe gemacht, die künstliche Intelligenz (KI) zu regulieren. Zu diesem Zweck hat sie das KI-Verordnung (oder auch KI-Gesetz oder AI-Act) auf den Weg gebracht, welches im März

Software license agreement and insolvency of the licensor II

More contributions

KI VO Stand 2024 Allgemeine Regelungen Teil IV Generische AI

KI VO Stand 2024 Allgemeine Regelungen Teil III

KI-Verordnung – Ein Überblick

Legal

Contact