breach of contract
noun · Pflichtverletzung
Pflichtverletzung, the word § 280 Abs. 1 BGB pleads with, Vertragsverletzung where prose wants the contract in the word, Vertragsbruch in headlines, not in commercial drafting. And the vocabulary is the smaller half, English breach carries liability by itself, the German claim adds Vertretenmüssen, presumed against the debtor but open to rebuttal.
Which translation, when
Why
English contract liability is strict as a rule, the promise works as a guarantee, breach alone opens damages and the debtor’s diligence is no defence. German law frames the same event differently twice over. The event is a Pflichtverletzung, § 280 Abs. 1 BGB, a category wider than breach, covering the duty to perform, § 241 Abs. 1 BGB, and the protective duties of § 241 Abs. 2 BGB alike. And the liability is fault-based, Schadensersatz requires Vertretenmüssen, § 276 BGB defines it as intent and negligence, though § 280 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BGB presumes it against the debtor, who must exculpate himself. Strict pockets exist, a guarantee taken over, a procurement risk, § 276 Abs. 1 BGB, but they are exceptions the drafting has to create. So a breach rendered as Pflichtverletzung is correctly translated and still dangerous to reason with, the English reader expects liability to follow from the breach itself, the German debtor may yet escape by proving he was not at fault, and what German law offers instead of strictness is a burden reversal.
Typical mistakes
- Vertragsbruch is the word of headlines, in legal German it survives only as the employment-law term for walking out on the job, so a commercial Schriftsatz built on it reads as translated journalism, the working words are Pflichtverletzung and Vertragsverletzung.
- Vertragsverletzungsverfahren is taken, it names the EU infringement procedure against member states, Art. 258 AEUV, so proceedings for breach of contract need another label, ein Verfahren wegen Pflichtverletzung.
- Reasoning from breach straight to damages imports English strictness, the German claim fails if the debtor proves he was not at fault, § 280 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BGB, the right assumption is a presumption, not a guarantee.
What matters
A claim letter after a defective delivery that damaged the buyer’s production line shows the shift: the English draft states the breach and demands damages, the German version pleads a Pflichtverletzung, § 280 Abs. 1 BGB, and then waits for the debtor’s exculpation attempt. The letter is right to sound confident, the presumption runs against the debtor, but the English assumption that breach alone settles liability is the one thing the translation must not carry across.
What the machine misses
Breach of contract leaves the engines torn between Vertragsbruch and Vertragsverletzung, and the first belongs to headlines and to employment law, not to a commercial pleading. The deeper loss is silent, the English term carried strict liability with it, the German term does not, and no rendering warns the reader that between the two words a fault requirement, presumed but rebuttable, has entered the claim.
Examples
| a breach of contract | eine Pflichtverletzung |
| fundamental breach | wesentliche Vertragsverletzung |
| in breach of its obligations | unter Verletzung seiner Pflichten |
| to cure the breach | die Vertragsverletzung beheben |
More notes on these sections
misrepresentation arglistige Täuschung
indemnity Freistellung
specific performance Erfüllung