lieferbedingungen-adsp

/transportrecht:lieferbedingungen-adsp

Purpose

The skill examines whether the Allgemeine Deutsche Spediteurbedingungen 2017 (ADSp 2017) have been validly incorporated into a specific forwarding or warehousing contract, whether their clauses withstand the review of content under §§ 305 et seq. BGB as well as the special statutory limit of § 449 HGB, and what scope the relevant clauses – in particular limitation of liability (section 23), warehousing (section 24), lien (section 19) and prohibition of set-off (section 27) – have in the dispute.

The ADSp 2017 are standard terms and conditions of the forwarder side (jointly recommended by the Bundesverband Spedition und Logistik DSLV with associations of the shipping industry – BDI, BGA, DIHK, HDE) and not a statute. They apply only insofar as they are incorporated by contract.

Inputs

Type of contract (forwarding contract § 453 HGB; warehousing contract § 467 HGB; carriage contract with self-entry § 458 HGB)
Position of the client (forwarder, consignor/principal, consignee, insurer)
B2B or B2C?
Form and time of the reference to the ADSp (order confirmation, contract form, framework agreement, commercial confirmation letter, display of standard terms and conditions, email footer reference)
Specific disputed clause (section 23 liability / section 24 warehousing / section 19 lien / section 27 prohibition of set-off / other)
Amount in dispute, gross weight of the consignment, forwarder's insurance, existence of deviating individual agreements (section 2.2 ADSp – priority)

Sub-agent architecture

Researcher provides the full text of the ADSp, BGB statutes on the review of standard terms and conditions, § 449 HGB and case law on the review of the content of the ADSp (BGH I. ZS) as well as commentary references (Koller, MüKoHGB, Schmidt/Bahnsen "ADSp 2017"). Drafter examines in the style of a legal opinion inclusion → review of content → scope. Reviewer examines the requirements for inclusion (§ 305 II BGB for consumers / § 449 II HGB for entrepreneurs) and § 307 compatibility with the valuations of the HGB.

Procedure

1. Classification of the contract

§ 453 HGB: forwarding contract – the forwarder arranges the dispatch of the goods.
§ 458 HGB: self-entry – if the forwarder himself acts as carrier, §§ 425 et seq. HGB apply.
§ 459 HGB: fixed-cost forwarding – lump-sum remuneration, carriage law by analogy.
§ 467 HGB: warehousing contract – storage and safekeeping on a commercial basis.

The ADSp 2017 cover all three types of contract, insofar as they are incorporated.

2. Inclusion

2.1 In B2B (entrepreneur ↔ entrepreneur) – the standard case of the ADSp

§ 449 HGB is the special statutory limit for deviations from the HGB carriage law. In B2B dealings, facilitations apply compared with the general rules on standard terms and conditions:

Inclusion in a contract between entrepreneurs is governed by general rules (§§ 145 et seq. BGB) – an express reference and the possibility of reasonable notice are sufficient.
A note "The ADSp in their respective current version apply" on the freight forwarder's order confirmation is regularly sufficient in B2B, provided the other party remains silent without objection (commercial silence).
§ 305 II BGB does not apply in B2B (§ 310 I 1 BGB) – the formal requirements for inclusion do not apply; substantive review of content under § 307 BGB remains.

2.2 In B2C (entrepreneur ↔ consumer)

§ 305 II BGB is applicable: express reference and reasonable possibility of notice are mandatory.
The mere reference "ADSp in the respective current version" without handing over the text or making it available online is not.
For consumer freight forwarders, the stricter prohibitions on clauses under §§ 308, 309 BGB apply.

2.3 Special case: commercial confirmation letter

A unilateral reference to the ADSp in the freight forwarder's commercial confirmation letter becomes part of the contract if the recipient does not object without undue delay – principle of the commercial confirmation letter, established by customary law.

3. Review of content under §§ 307 et seq. BGB

§ 307 BGB is also applicable in B2B dealings (§ 310 I 2 BGB – consideration of the customs and usages prevailing in commercial transactions; limited effect of §§ 308, 309 BGB as an indication).

Standard: Unreasonable disadvantage contrary to the requirements of good faith; in particular deviations from the essential basic idea of the statutory provision (§ 307 II No. 1 BGB).

3.1 No. 23 ADSp 2017 – liability amount

Core rule:

Liability of the freight forwarder for loss/damage limited to 8.33 SDR/kg of the gross weight of the consignment (No. 23.1.1) – identical in content to § 431 HGB / Art. 23 III CMR.
Flat-rate per damage event: liability per damage event is generally limited to EUR 1,000,000 or 2 SDR per kg gross weight of the consignment (whichever is higher), but in total limited to EUR 2,000,000 or 2 SDR/kg per damage event (No. 23.1.2 et seq.) [unverifiziert – ADSp-Text-Version 2017 prüfen].
Warehousing: EUR 35,000 per damage event (No. 23.1.3).
Insurance obligation of the freight forwarder (No. 28 ADSp): transport liability insurance to cover the ADSp liability.

§ 307 BGB review: The limitation to 8.33 SDR/kg corresponds to the statutory valuation of § 431 HGB; its validity under the law on general terms and conditions in B2B is – insofar as it follows § 431 HGB – generally recognized. Limit § 435 HGB / Art. 29 CMR: The ADSp cannot exclude qualified fault (§ 449 I HGB in conjunction with § 307 BGB; cf. No. 25 ADSp).

3.2 No. 24 ADSp 2017 – warehousing

Special rules for the warehousing contract: inventory, delivery in cases of dispute, retention of title by the principal, etc.

3.3 Clause 19 ADSp 2017 – Lien and securities

Extension of the statutory lien (Section 464 HGB for freight forwarders, Section 475b HGB for warehouse keepers) to all claims of the freight forwarder arising from the business relationship. Section 307 BGB assessment: extended general terms and conditions liens are generally permissible in B2B, provided they do not go beyond the customary level.

3.4 Clause 27 ADSp 2017 – Prohibition of set-off and retention

Standard clause: The principal may set off counterclaims only if they are undisputed or established by final judgment Retention rights are excluded if they do not arise from the same contractual relationship.

Section 307 BGB assessment:

B2C: Section 309 No. 3 BGB – a prohibition of set-off only for undisputed or finally established counterclaims is permissible; otherwise the clause prohibition applies.
B2B: Indicative effect of Section 309 No. 3 BGB via Section 307 BGB; recognized in case law if the permissible scope of set-off (undisputed / final judgment) is preserved – otherwise invalid.

4. Priority of individual agreements (Clause 2.2 ADSp)

Clause 2.2 ADSp 2017: Individually negotiated agreements take precedence. Even in B2B contracts, Section 305b BGB leads to the priority of the individual agreement over general terms and conditions.

5. Legal consequences of invalid ADSp clauses

If individual clauses are invalid, Sections 306 BGB / Section 449 III HGB apply (the clause is omitted, the rest of the contract remains effective) and in their place the dispositive HGB law (Sections 407 et seq., 453 et seq., 467 et seq.). A reduction preserving validity is excluded.

6. Application matrix

Constellation	Inclusion	Content review
B2B framework agreement with reference to ADSp	Section 449 II HGB in conjunction with Sections 145 et seq. BGB	Section 307 BGB
B2B individual order, reference in order confirmation	effective upon action without objection	Section 307 BGB
B2C – end-customer relocation, parcel transport	Section 305 II BGB – notice + acknowledgement	Sections 307, 308, 309 BGB
International transport under CMR	ADSp applicable only insofar as the CMR permits (Art. 41 CMR – mandatory)	CMR precedence

Sources and citation style

Binding: ../../../references/zitierweise.md.

Statute

Section 305 BGB (inclusion of general terms and conditions)
Section 305b BGB (priority of individual agreement)
Section 307 BGB (content review)
Section 308 BGB (clause prohibitions with scope for assessment)
Section 309 BGB (clause prohibitions without scope for assessment, in particular No. 3 set-off)
Section 310 BGB (scope of application; B2B modifications)
Section 449 HGB (deviating agreements in freight law)
Section 466 HGB (Deviating agreements under forwarding law)
§§ 453, 458, 459, 461 HGB (forwarding contract)
§ 467 HGB (warehousing contract)
ADSp 2017 – full text (DSLV): https://www.dslv.org/dslv/web.nsf/id/li_adsp2017.html [unverifiziert – Aktualität prüfen]

Commentaries

Koller, Transportrecht, 10th ed. 2020, ADSp before No. 1 et seq.; No. 23 para. 1 et seq.; No. 27 para. 1 et seq. [unverifiziert – Auflagenstand prüfen]
Schmidt/Bahnsen, ADSp 2017 – Kommentar, most recent edition [unverifiziert]
Bydlinski, in: MüKoHGB, 4th ed. 2020, § 449 HGB para. 1 et seq. [unverifiziert]
Basedow, in: MüKoBGB, 9th ed. 2022, § 310 para. 1 et seq. (B2B standard terms review) [unverifiziert]

Case law (`[unverifiziert – prüfen in juris/TranspR]`)

BGH, judgment of 13.07.2006 – I ZR 245/03, TranspR 2006, 448 (ADSp – inclusion in B2B by conduct without objection)
BGH, judgment of 06.05.2010 – I ZR 31/08, TranspR 2010, 387 (No. 23 ADSp – limitation of the damaging event, validity in B2B)
BGH, judgment of 26.10.2017 – I ZR 178/16, TranspR 2018, 73 (prohibition of set-off under No. 27 ADSp and § 307 BGB)
OLG Hamburg, judgment of 24.11.2011 – 6 U 12/11, TranspR 2012, 159 (No. 19 ADSp – extension of lien)

Output format

GUTACHTEN – Einbeziehung und Inhalt der ADSp 2017
Vertrag: <Speditions- / Lager- / Frachtvertrag mit Selbsteintritt>
Parteien: <Auftraggeber> ↔ <Spediteur> (<B2B / B2C>)
Streitklausel: <Ziff. 23 / 24 / 19 / 27 ADSp>
Streitwert / Schaden: <EUR>; Bruttogewicht <kg>

I. Sachverhalt
II. Frage(n)
III. Kurzantwort
     – Einbeziehung ADSp 2017: [ja / nein] – Begründung
     – Inhaltskontrolle Streitklausel § 307 BGB: [wirksam / unwirksam]
     – Reichweite im konkreten Fall: <Höchstbetrag / Aufrechnung / Pfandrecht>
     – Empfehlung: <…>

IV. Rechtliche Bewertung
    1. Vertragstyp und Anwendbarkeit ADSp
    2. Einbeziehung
       a) B2B-Maßstab § 449 II HGB / §§ 145 ff. BGB
       b) (oder) B2C-Maßstab § 305 II BGB
       c) Vorrang Individualabrede (§ 305b BGB, Ziff. 2.2 ADSp)
    3. Inhaltskontrolle § 307 BGB
       a) Ziff. 23 (Haftungssumme)
       b) Ziff. 27 (Aufrechnungsverbot) – § 309 Nr. 3 BGB-Indizwirkung
       c) ggf. weitere Klauseln
    4. Grenze § 435 HGB / Art. 29 CMR – qualifiziertes Verschulden bleibt
    5. Rechtsfolge bei Unwirksamkeit – Rückfall auf §§ 407 ff., 453 ff., 467 ff. HGB

V. Gesamtergebnis

VI. Risiken / offene Punkte
    🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 <Einstufung mit Begründung>
    – Offene Tatsachen: Form der ADSp-Bezugnahme, Empfang durch Auftraggeber,
      Vorhandensein abweichender Individualabreden, Versicherungsdeckung

VII. Quellenverzeichnis
     – Statute (gesetze-im-internet.de)
     – ADSp-Volltext (DSLV)
     – Rspr. (BGH I ZR …, OLG …) [unverifiziert – prüfen]
     – Kommentare (Koller, Schmidt/Bahnsen, MüKoHGB)

Example (excerpt, legal opinion style)

"The forwarding order between V (consignor, mechanical engineering company) and S (forwarder) is to be classified as a B2B contract under § 453 HGB. For the inclusion of the ADSp 2017, § 449 II HGB in conjunction with §§ 145 et seq. BGB applies; § 305 II BGB is not applicable pursuant to § 310 I 1 BGB.

S's email confirmation contains the note 'The ADSp in their respective current version apply.' In B2B dealings, according to the prevailing view, such a note is sufficient for inclusion, provided V as a merchant has not objected – BGH (I. ZS), judgment of 13.07.2006 – I ZR 245/03. Handing over the ADSp text is not required, since V as an entrepreneur can reasonably be expected to take note of the content of the ADSp themselves.

No. 23.1.1 ADSp 2017 limits liability to 8.33 SDR/kg gross weight. This assessment corresponds to § 431 I HGB and is not objectionable in B2B under § 307 BGB. With a machine gross weight of 2,100 kg, a maximum amount of 17,493 SDR, to be converted using the SDR/EUR daily rate on the day of settlement (IMF, https://www.imf.org/external/np/fin/data/rms_five.aspx, as of ) [unverifiziert – Tageskurs prüfen].

Breaking through the limitation under § 435 HGB in conjunction with No. 25 ADSp 2017 requires qualified fault; § 449 I HGB precludes an extension of the limitation to the qualified case under standard terms law.

The prohibition of set-off provided for in No. 27 ADSp is – limited to claims not established by final judgment or disputed – also effective in B2B according to the BGH line (cf. BGH, judgment of 26.10.2017 – I ZR 178/16 [unverifiziert]). A set-off by V of the disputed damages claim against S's freight claim is therefore excluded as long as the claim is neither undisputed nor established by final judgment. ..."

Risks / typical mistakes

§ 305 II BGB applied in B2B – § 310 I 1 BGB overlooked.
No. 23 ADSp nodded through as valid across the board, without separately examining the flat-rate per damage event and the Section 435 HGB limit.
No. 27 ADSp understood as a general prohibition on set-off – Section 309 No. 3 BGB indicative effect misjudged; limit undisputed/final and binding.
CMR priority overlooked in cross-border transports – Art. 41 CMR renders deviating ADSp clauses to the detriment of the entitled person void.
Priority of individual agreement No. 2.2 ADSp / Section 305b BGB overlooked.
Attempted reduction preserving validity – excluded; fallback to dispositive HGB law.
ADSp referred to as "law" or "DIN standard" – they are standard terms and conditions agreed under private law.