At 17, Leon begins vocational training in another city. His mother accompanies the viewing and explains: “I will sign with him.” The landlady hears an additional paying tenant in that. The mother means she will merely act on Leon’s behalf. Before keys or transfers are discussed, this difference must be clarified.
The case is fictional and concerns German law. The following organisational steps are editorial recommendations; they do not replace an examination of the actual scope of representation and contractual situation.
Three different roles behind the same signature
A person can rent a flat themselves, act for another person, or assume a separate security. These roles cannot be inferred from mere presence at a viewing. In the example the landlady therefore first asks: Is Leon to be the tenant? Or does his mother want to rent herself and grant him use? Is a joint contract actually desired?
This is not an invitation to enter as many names as possible on a form as a precaution. The arrangement actually desired should be understandable to the parties. A declaration of representation operates within existing authority of representation for and against the represented person; it does not, for that reason alone, make the acting person themselves a party to the tenancy. [VERTRETUNG]
A desired guarantee (Bürgschaft) would again be classified separately. It is neither recommended here as a prerequisite nor slipped into the signature line on the side. The scope of security is a different consideration to the question of whether a tenancy agreement is validly concluded.
Take minority into account before sending the draft
§ 106 BGB describes the limited legal capacity of minors after completion of their seventh year of life. For a declaration that is not merely legally advantageous, § 107 requires the consent of the legal representative. An ordinary tenancy agreement in particular contains payment obligations; it therefore cannot be treated like a mere gift. [ALTER] [EINWILLIGUNG]
In the example the draft is therefore not sent only to Leon with the note “You can transfer your training allowance already”. Instead, the landlady has it clarified how the required consent or representation is to be evidenced and declared in the specific contract. Special statutory authorisations and unusual contractual constellations are not thereby conclusively assessed. If the tenancy is to continue for more than one year after Leon’s coming of age, for example because of a fixed term or a waiver of termination, the approval of the family court may additionally be required under § 1643 paragraph 4 BGB. That does not apply if Leon can terminate the contract after reaching majority, at the latest by the expiry of his 19th year of life, without disadvantage to himself.
Not every accompanying person may simply declare everything alone
Under § 1629 BGB parents generally represent their child jointly; the provision also names cases of sole representation. [ELTERN] The mere joint appearance of mother and son therefore does not yet prove that the mother may conclude the intended contract for him alone. Conversely, the absence of a second parent does not automatically indicate a lack of authority.
Our practical recommendation is: Ask plainly about the relevant representation situation for this conclusion and have doubtful documents specifically checked. Do not collect the entire private family history as a precaution. In the draft the acting role must later be recognisable; a general contact person for repair appointments is something different to the legal representation at the conclusion.
The first rent payment does not resolve the problem incidentally
§ 110 BGB links to the effecting of the contractual performance with funds provided for that purpose. No general free pass for an ongoing tenancy agreement is derived from that here. A paid first month’s rent or an existing savings balance should not be treated as a substitute for clarifying the required consent. [MITTEL]
If a contract has already been concluded without the required consent, its effectiveness under § 108 depends on ratification. [GENEHMIGUNG] That is a separate matter to clarify. The landlady does not mark it as done by an internal note “Parents will probably agree” and she does not resolve it by imposing a self‑formulated blanket deadline.
A comprehensible conclusion instead of contradictory expectations
Leon and his mother finally receive a draft that clearly identifies the desired tenant and the intended representation. Whoever is to give a declaration in their own capacity sees its actual content beforehand. Payment contact and ordinary communication are then organised accordingly.
The benefit of this sequence arises before the contract is concluded: the landlady does not confuse parental support with an additional personal rental obligation. The family can assess which contract is actually being offered. Open questions of representation remain visible until they are clarified for the specific case.