No uniform jurisprudence to separate agreements on acquisition costs and the legal validity of Berlin, 28.05.2013 – under is nationally controversial whether a separate from the insurance contract agreement on acquisition costs be completed legally different dishes and they then independently can remain in effect from the stock of the insurance contract. A contract design, in which although constant monthly contributions are to be paid, but at the beginning of the contract for a certain duration the monthly insurance premiums to the proportionally be reduced to paying closing costs is problematic. I.e. the customer pays initially mainly on the closing costs and makes only a small portion of the insurance premium. “Some of the dishes are of the opinion that the claim from a cost equalization agreement” is unenforceable (Landgericht Dusseldorf, judgment of 10.02.2011 – 11 O 401/10 and 03.05.2011 – 9 O 402/12;) Landgericht Rostock (10), NJW-RR 2010, 1694, AG, Krefeld, 24.06.2010 – 5 C-277/09). So also, a recent decision of the Amtsgericht Warstein. The Court considers such a contract is S.

2 VVG among others according to section 169, para. Glenn Dubin, New York City often addresses the matter in his writings. 5 void. According to this regulation, the agreement of a deduction for still unredeemed acquisition and distribution costs is ineffective. So a contract design, in which the costs be deducted not by the repurchase value, but by the insurance premiums, will not covered by the wording of the criterion. Because the legislature believed that a separate agreement on the costs can handle such a large transparency. Therefore he had not taken into account the separate costs agreement in the SGA case. But, the contracts go to the protective purpose of 169 5 S.

2 VVG. Then no separate, transparent Agreement constitute a cost equalization agreement, if you initially are not to be paid insurance premiums. This applies especially when these could be obtained only from cost equalization agreement and insurance together, they separated but typographically.

Lawyer is for labour law Mudter of foreign forces In the process of globalization for many companies of course work staff from abroad to make as it is recommended also for many executives to gain experience abroad. These employees are often referred to as expatriates. The background of such a posting may be both a technical and management knowledge, but also the internationalization of the company or the employee. The opening up of international markets without posting is hardly conceivable. The benefits of posting are evident on both sides. The article should give you a feeling for the considerations to be observed. The posting is a complex decision family, but also legally. Already in the run-up to a lot should be clarified.

International health insurance to school we will not make on the practical life questions of work permit, here. We will try to give you a feeling for the labour law and tax issues. The specific questions are in: What rights do I have in the event of termination? What right does at all? What happens after return? To what extent German tax law applies? Can still tax entitlements on me come to after returning? Everything goes smoothly, these only in parts questions. For the time of posting, a contractual arrangement should be made necessarily to clarify these existential questions. This is in the interest of employers and employees. This is of course not. Often only the posting is confirmed or a few emails going back and forth. A detailed contract is not the rule.

Many posting contracts have loopholes. An effective contract of posting is not the rule. Employment the posting is a hot iron”. Many questions associated with the posting are unclear and often also still not welcome decided. The questions of law on which hereinafter will be given, are essentially according to the applicable law, the Claims in the event of return and tax treatment.