That the terms and conditions of SAP after the European Court of Justice ruling of SAP is still used in the course of trade be an unfair competition is according to Axel Susen and also many users because the SAP with the clause unreasonably discriminated against the software purchaser (i.e., the software users). Such inappropriate discrimination can be objected by competitors in terms of a competition infringement by terms and conditions. The acquisition of SAP standard software a customer is to classify according to prevailing case law as thing purchase to which the purchase regulations of the Civil Code apply. SAP brings a software on the market, can the lawful acquirer (= buyer) to use the software. The purchaser definitively abandons the use, so a resale under certain conditions is possible because of the exhaustion of copyright dissemination. The European Court of Justice has confirmed this by his ruling from July 2012. It is, however, incompatible with the essential principle of the exhaustion principle that SAP the deployment of SAP software in any case their approval dependent on makes so that the disputed clause does not support a general terms and conditions legal control.
The SAP customers are not entitled to use the software as their own property and to dispose freely according to the constitutionally guaranteed property warranty. SAP would be but obliged to give their customers this right, because the obligation to the full transfer of ownership represents a cardinal obligation from the debt purchase agreement with all the consequences. The transferee owner and BGB basically to the right, with the thing at will and to exclude others from any action in accordance with 903. SAPstempelt their customers but with the contested terms and conditions clause to second-class owners and denied the flowing from the principle of ownership essential right, the property according to 929 et seq.