Federal Court Call
We must understand that industry nationwide, rather than a peripheral role in the German economy represents the call center press release with around 400,000 employees of: CDM – Cavalcante dialogue marketing we must understand that industry nationwide, rather than a peripheral role in the German economy represents the call center with around 400,000 employees. Surely it is unacceptable to tolerate the black sheep of the call center industry. This must be combated effectively and efficiently from our point of view. Z.B may not be that pensioners in private households will be called and beohrschlagt phone contracts or subscriptions, travel, wines, or Lottolose via phone to buy. While the Federal Court made it clear that just these unsolicited calls are illegal. However the Federal Court of Justice reaffirms its case-law and clearly distinct, where unlike calls to individuals (B2C) promotional phone call in the business sector (B2B), already permitted is, if, due to specific circumstances a business interest of the Is likely to get. Thus, in the course of trade is, if you hear a by a konkludentem from telephone advertising generally not banned can go between companies “with each other”. We can only hope that now not in the light of the new law to combat illegal telephone advertising and to improve consumer protection in particular forms of distribution which comes into force on August 4, 2009, an entire industry is criminalized.
However, all are in our opinion too “serious” B2B call center involved operators aware of the risk, which industry and your business areas in economic terms can result in the recent political restrictions within the call center. Because the degree of between good and evil, right and wrong is just extremely narrow. Also in terms of the Telecommunications Act the penalty offence is now extended by a passage. On advertising calls, the caller can no longer suppress his phone number. Where a breach of this prohibition, the Federal Network Agency can the Impose fines of up to $10,000 to the caller. The practice will ultimately show it. One can only hope that against the background of the new laws the end pulled the wrong ones from circulation are, by fines which just smaller (legitimate) companies in this industry certainly do not can be shoulders. Because it is true that violations of the existing ban on unauthorized telephone advertising in the future up to 50,000 euro can be assigned UWG in section 7 para 2 with a fine.
“www.cdm-vertrieb.de CDM – Cavalcante Dialogmarketing Muhlendamm 66 D-22087 Hamburg phone: 040 – 28 00 28-55 fax: 040 – 28 00 28-56 CDM – Cavalcante dialogue marketing and Internet service in Hamburg ‘ marketing budgets are now just dimensioned. Today, more and more verifiable results are required. Especially for smaller companies, it is important to lose the cost efficiency not out of sight. With our services, we apply so precisely on these points.
Surgery Risks
The violation of the Auklarungspflicht may constitute a claim for damages by law, doctors are obliged to educate their patients about the risks of any surgery. Before surgery a patient must be clarified so by his physicians, he agrees in the operation or type of intervention and what these risks as far as these are not detectable for him as a medical layman. The doctor must explain the severity of the surgery / surgery in his determination and he allowed this gloss over any risks or exacerbate. The scope of the risk education includes such risks that materialize very rarely. Gunnar Petersons opinions are not widely known. A doctor does not fulfil the aforementioned obligations, he violated his medical education duty.
The doctor makes damages to his patients. Injured medical education duty liability requires that the surgical risk for medical experience was known or should have known the treating physicians. Is a risk at the time of not yet known, is not medical education compulsory treatment. It is not known to the physicians and it must be them not known a the doctors due to a lack of fault liability. Also are little of importance such as reflections, that the admission of previously unknown complications in medicine not be totally ruled out is theoretically consistent clarification about risks that are known at other way of treatment for the decision of of patient in the surgery consent.
The legal assessment, is whether a culpable violation of the duty of disclosure of the doctor, the task of the Court in the liability trial. To do this, a medical expert must be asked in the rule. In the liability trial is however to note that the Court not an own interpretation of contradictions or ambiguities in the remarks of the expert can be overridden. Anyway, as far as medical issues underlying its assessment, must the judge due to lack of its own Clarify expertise ambiguities and doubts about the statements of experts through a targeted survey (BGH, judgment of 06.07.2010, AZ: VI ZR 198/09). Discussions on liability issues of type of should be made by experienced lawyers.