Car bought online: can an “Order” button invalidate the contract?

EUR 60,170 paid, but no valid purchase contract?

In March 2022, a consumer ordered a car from the manufacturer’s online shop. At the end, he clicked “Bestellen”, paid EUR 60,170 and received the vehicle in September. When he sought to unwind the transaction in August 2023, the ordinary withdrawal period had already expired. His withdrawal therefore did not succeed.

Berlin’s Kammergericht nevertheless awarded him EUR 53,217.73, but only in exchange for returning the car and transferring ownership back. In its judgment of 17 September 2026, it held that the inadequate wording of the order button had prevented a valid purchase contract from being formed. Repayment was therefore based on unjust enrichment, not an extended right of withdrawal (1 U 25/25, operative part and paragraphs 18 to 24).

Why the final click matters legally

Section 312j(3) of the German Civil Code requires an express acknowledgment of the payment obligation for consumer contracts within its scope concluded by electronic means. Where an order is placed using a button, it must say “zahlungspflichtig bestellen” (“order with obligation to pay”) or use equally unambiguous wording. Subsection 4 makes compliance a condition for the contract to be formed.

The Kammergericht held that “Bestellen” alone was insufficient. Earlier price information or a preceding “Continue to payment” button could not cure the defect in the decisive final click. For this panel, the customer’s deliberate intention to buy the car made no difference: the rule also clarifies exactly when a binding payment obligation arises and protects against hasty orders (paragraphs 24 to 32).

Other courts take a different view of comparable car purchases

The legal position is disputed. The Kammergericht expressly addresses conflicting decisions from other appellate courts. Those courts limit the button rule in certain cases where consumers deliberately make a car purchase that is clearly recognisable as requiring payment. The Berlin panel rejects that restriction (paragraphs 26 to 32).

A recent comparison is the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court’s judgment of 15 September 2026, 9 U 76/25. According to its official press release of 23 September, repayment was refused where the ordering process was transparent despite the button saying “Bestellen”. The court also relied on conduct contrary to good faith. This supplementary information is based on the press release, not on an analysis here of the Frankfurt judgment’s full reasons. The release describes the judgment as not final.

The Kammergericht allowed an appeal on points of law specifically because the case law diverges (paragraph 67). The sources checked up to 3 October 2026 do not establish that the Federal Court of Justice has finally resolved this dispute. Anyone seeking to unwind a purchase must therefore factor in litigation risk.

Repayment does not mean continued use is free

In the Berlin case, EUR 6,952.27 had to be deducted for continued use after the request to unwind the transaction. The buyer could therefore neither recover the full purchase price nor keep the car as well. The calculation considered the purchase price, distance travelled and expected total mileage. The specific treatment of periods of use is part of this judgment, not a general tariff for all vehicles (paragraphs 44 to 56).

Costs also matter: the parties generally had to bear half the litigation costs each, while the buyer bore the additional costs caused by his default. He did not recover his pre-litigation legal fees. The court relied, among other matters, on the initial approach being based solely on a late withdrawal and on the particular circumstances of the lawyer’s engagement (operative part and paragraphs 61 to 65).

What to preserve before seeking repayment

Our practical recommendation: what matters is the process when you placed your order. A screenshot of the shop today does not automatically establish what it looked like at the time. Gather the following documents and have the possible claim, deductions for use and costs assessed together.

The judgment concerns a consumer purchase through an online shop. Business purchases, contracts concluded at a dealership and contracts negotiated exclusively through individual emails require separate assessment. Section 312j(5) expressly provides an exception for contracts concluded exclusively through individual communication. A defective button also does not mean that you can stop ongoing payments under a financing agreement without a separate assessment.

• Order date, confirmation and contract documents, including withdrawal information
• Available screenshots or other evidence of the original ordering process and final button
• Payment evidence, delivery date and documented mileage
• Previous repayment requests or withdrawal notices, responses and any financing documents