Private Sales Agreement for the Contents of a Terraced House

Jul 9, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) issued a decision regarding the validity of a private sale agreement entered into by the former and current tenants concerning the furnishings of a terraced house.

The claimant in the case at hand had leased a terraced house from a non-profit housing association. He subsequently entered into a written private saless agreement with the defendant, who was a prospective new tenant, regarding the contents of the property. The agreed purchase price was EUR 115,000, to be paid in two instalments. The defendant later acquired ownership of the terraced house but failed to pay the second instalment of EUR 57,500.

The claimant requested payment of the second instalment. The defendant contended that the actual value of the goods was significantly less than half of the agreed purchase price, resulting in a shortfall exceeding fifty percent.

The court of first instance upheld the claim. The court of appeal, however, upheld the appeal and quashed the judgment of the court of first instance.

The defendant was under pressure when the private sale agreement was made

The findings indicate that the private sales agreement and the tenancy agreement are closely connected, leading to the conclusion that the defendant acted under duress. The private sales agreement was executed at a time when the defendant lacked legal certainty regarding his position, thereby limiting his capacity for independent decision-making. Pursuant to Section 27(1)(1) of the Austrian Tenancy Act (Mietrechtsgesetz, hereinafter MRG), the transfer agreement is invalid and prohibited to the extent that the defendant, as the new tenant, was required to provide consideration to the claimant, the previous tenant, without receiving equivalent benefit in return.

As stated in the claim, the agreed payment was intended to compensate not only for the acquisition of the fixtures and fittings and prior investments, but also for the opportunity to obtain ownership of the terraced house at an earlier date. Whether the reduction of the waiting period warrants a lump-sum payment must be evaluated by determining if this factor possesses objective commercial significance and can be ascribed financial value.

The OGH found the claimant’s appeal to be inadmissible and therefore dismissed it

The court of appeal’s view that the private sale agreement and the conclusion of the tenancy agreement between the defendant and the non-profit housing association were inextricably linked does not require correction, if only because, according to the claimant’s submission, he had been granted the right to nominate a new tenant to the landlord and, consequently, the validity of the assignment agreement was also contingent upon the conclusion of the tenancy agreement between the defendant and the non-profit housing association. Had the defendant refused to enter into the assignment agreement, he would have had to expect that the claimant would not terminate his tenancy or, at any rate, not do so whilst naming the defendant as the new tenant. The fact that such an agreement is subject to Section 27(1)(1) of the MRG is therefore in line with OGH case law.

OGH 1 Ob 62/26p (27 May 2026)