claim

Which translation, when

Why

German built its legal method around this word. § 194 Abs. 1 BGB defines the Anspruch, the right to demand action or forbearance from another, in the same breath that makes it the object of limitation, which is why der Anspruch verjährt. The reach is wide, contractual, tortious and proprietary alike, the owner recovering the thing has an Anspruch, § 985 BGB, though not a Forderung, because die Forderung is the narrower obligational species, the claim to performance, the thing assigned, scheduled and proved in insolvency. The working method travels with the noun, German lawyers test every claim against its Anspruchsgrundlage, wer will was von wem woraus, and a memo that never names the statutory basis reads unfinished to the German eye. The verbs sort the last confusion, rights are geltend gemacht, asserted, while behaupten belongs to facts, so the claimant’s claims are seine Ansprüche, and only his factual allegations are Behauptungen. The procedural shell, finally, is the Klage, the statement of claim die Klageschrift.

Typical mistakes

• Behauptungen des Klägers for the claimant’s claims turns rights into talk, die Ansprüche werden geltend gemacht, behauptet werden Tatsachen.
• Forderung is narrower than Anspruch, the owner recovering the thing has an Anspruch, § 985 BGB, not a Forderung, so all claims of the company translates as sämtliche Ansprüche where property sits among them.
• The reasoning unit travels with the word, German lawyers ask for the Anspruchsgrundlage, wer will was von wem woraus, and a memo that never names the statutory basis reads unfinished to the German eye.

What matters

Release clauses live on the breadth of the noun: the parties waive all claims arising from the agreement reads sämtliche Ansprüche aus diesem Vertrag, § 194 Abs. 1 BGB reaching contractual, tortious and proprietary rights alike, while alle Forderungen would quietly spare everything that is not an obligational claim. The Behauptungen version releases nothing but gossip.

Examples