How educational is too educational?

Question

After almost six months being live, on 2023‑07‑28 Pat W. deleted my answer (for reference repeated below). It is in style a full legal opinion as to be handed in at the end of a typical 120-minute written exam at German law schools. The closing comment reads:

This would benefit from edits for relevance and concision.

This begs the question: How educational is too educational? Apparently submitting an answer that is acceptable in teaching at university (≈ education) is deletion-worthy on this site (which, may I remind you, claims to be educational in kind).

What irritates me the most, however, is the educational uselessness of the other (non-deleted) answers (which I presume were also reviewed with the same scrutiny as mine):

• My answer cites the law, § so-and-so Civil Code. The other answers do not cite any section. Their authors could have just as well fabricated their unsourced claims. Failing to cite the law (even though you could) even deducts points in exams.
• The other answers fail to name the problematic issues at hand: How to handle default in labor (here outside the CoViD‑19-pandemic context) and the Lehre vom Betriebsrisiko. Identifying and addressing controversial issues is the core subject of any legal question. You will not pass the bar in Germany simply by providing “correct” end results. In law school the way toward a solution is expected from you.
• My answer also showcases the internal structure (Prüfungsschema) of answering a legal question (concerning German civil law). Evidently things can nest pretty deep but that is how things are; it definitely aides verifiability, splitting a major problem into several “sub-questions”. Unfortunately it also inevitably causes a series of intermediate result sections, yet explicitly drawing conclusions is de lege artis.

It is therefore debatable whether the questioner (or other reader) will be able to answer similar questions on his own after having read exclusively the other answers (= the very nature of educational content).

---

1. contractual obligations
   Sajonji may have a contractual claim against employer E.
   1. primary claims
      Sajonji could have a contractual claim against employer E for payment of €3000 on 2023‑02‑01. (Taxes and social security contributions are ignored for the sake of simplicity.)
      1. cause of claim
         Sajonji and employer E concluded, §§ 145 ff. BGB, a contract of employment, §§ 611 ff. BGB, on 2022‑06‑24 obligating E to pay S €3000 after the end of each month, § 614 2 BGB, starting with July 2022. That means the most recent claim became payable on 2023‑02‑01, a date in the past. (Contracts usually deviate from and supersede this general rule of § 614 2 BGB. It’s quite possible payment can be effected within 15 days of each month if your contract says so.)
      2. forfeiture of claim
         The claim may have expired.

         1. performance
            The claim expires by fulfillment, § 362 Ⅰ BGB. For the months of July through December, E effected payment in full. The respective claims expired by means of fulfillment.

            For the month of January 2023, however, E transferred only €2950 into S’s checking account, i. e. €50 short of the owed amount. The employment contract does not stipulate that salary can be effected in installments. The fallback rule of § 266 BGB unmistakably does not grant the right of partial performance. If S does not accept the partial performance at hand, § 364 Ⅰ BGB, this claim has not expired.

         2. setoff (hypothetical)
            If S did not accept the partial performance, S will be obligated to return any unjust enrichment by the rules of §§ 812 ff. BGB. E did not put forward a claim for that as of today. If, however, E paid up the remaining amount today, he’ll be able to set off the claims by declaration, §§ 387 ff. BGB. The setoff amount is limited to the attachment of earnings cap, § 394 1 BGB → §§ 850 ff. ZPO.

         3. intermediate result
            The claim for payment of €3000 to be effected on 2023‑02‑01 still exists. Previous claims have been fulfilled, thus expired.

      3. claim enforceable
         The claim may be subject to inhibitory defenses if brought forward by the respective entitled party.
         1. defense of non-performance of contract
            E could have a right to retain his performance until complete performance of the other party (S) based on § 320 Ⅰ 1 BGB. For that E must have an enforceable contractual claim against S in a set of mutual obligations.
            1. mutual obligations
               An employment contract is characterized by rendering services at the exchange of salary, both principal obligations of this synallagmatic contract.
            2. enforceable claim
               E’s claim against S for rendering of services must be enforceable. It is enforceable if there is a cause of claim, the claim has not forfeited and S does not raise any defense.
               1. cause of claim
                  E’s claim stems from a. m. employment contract, which is not suffering from any defects.
               2. forfeiture of claim
                  However, the claim may have expired.

                  1. performance
                     The claim may have expired by virtue of performance, § 362 Ⅰ BGB. The contract stipulates that S owes 37.5 hours of services per week, not necessarily uniformly distributed across business days. In the first four calendar weeks of 2023, S met this goal. Hence, the claim expired for those four weeks.

                     In the fifth week, however, E maintains that S has only worked 36 hours, a deficit of 1.5 hours. Yet S claims this deficit was due to a power outage. Indeed, on 2023‑01‑30 there was a power outage lasting about 2 hours. S’s line of work requires electricity, so S could not render services as owed. 0.5 hours are attributed to a mandatory break. Hence, the claim for performance of the remaining 1.5 hours has not expired by virtue of performance.

                  2. impossibility
                     Rendering services could have become impossible, thus the claim for performance of the remaining 1.5 hours of services may have expired, § 275 Ⅰ, 326 Ⅰ / 1 BGB.

                     1. impossible
                        In general, the employee must render services at the specified time. On the one hand, working does not depend on time. Operating a computer, as part of S’s obligations, can be done at a later point in time. On the other hand, the employer needs to (be able to) realize profits from the employee’s services to subsequently pay his salary. Thus performance at a later point in time will prevent the employer from earning enough profits to pay his employee. Therefore, performance on a different date is inherently different than the originally scheduled date (absolutes Fixgeschäft). Performance became impossible.
                     2. unless obligee’s fault
                        However, if the circumstance rendering performance impossible is primarily or overwhelmingly the obligee’s fault, his duty does not lapse, § 326 1 | 1 BGB. Being responsible for the fault means being liable in the sense of §§ 276, 278 BGB. That means gross negligence to the very least. The power outage on 2023‑01‑30 affected an entire region, thus cannot be attributed to, for example, a lack of maintenance of the company building’s internal electrics. E contracts a third party to supply the company with electric energy. The used utility company seems to be generally reliable and reports show the outage was due to a snowstorm. Hence there is no indication E deliberately or negligently caused the power outage preventing S’s performance.
                     3. not obligee’s fault but in default of acceptance
                        Since the employer does not bear the responsibility for said circumstance, § 326 Ⅱ 1 | 2 BGB may be applicable. The employer’s obligation to pay the employee does not lapse if the circumstance the employer was not responsible for occurred at a time the employer was in default of acceptance, § 326 Ⅱ 1 | 2, 293 ff. BGB in conjunction with § 615 1 BGB.
                        1. possibility to work
                           In principle, it was possible for S to render services on 2023‑01‑30 during the power outage.
                        2. no work
                           S must have completely ceased to perform any work. If S did the slightest amount of work, e. g. cleaning up workspace, this counts toward working time, because the employee gains, as minor as it might be, a benefit.
                        3. offer
                           S must have offered to E to render services, § 294 BGB. An oral offer is sufficient, since E has to provide necessary plant and equipment to fulfill said performance, § 295 1 BGB. On 2023‑01‑30 S asked the supervisor what to do. This can be regarded as an oral offer to perform work, § 133, 157 BGB. Hence an offer has been made.
                        4. non-acceptance
                           E must not have accepted the offer. When the power outage occurred, S’s supervisor representing E gave S the option to leave or wait until energy is restored. Thus there was a chance to accept the offered work, but E declined, i. e. did not accept the offer.
                        5. production risk
                           The default of acceptance must have occurred due to realization of a production risk, § 615 3 BGB. A production risk is any risk that originates the employer’s sphere (Lehre vom Betriebsrisiko). In the present case providing electricity is the employer’s responsibility. He must take account of the possibility of a power outage. Since the power outage was underlying cause of the default of acceptance, E’s production risk materialized.
                        6. intermediate result
                           Albeit impossible to perform his duties, S remains entitled to remuneration because E was in default of acceptance when a production risk realized.
                     4. intermediate result
                        E’s claim to demand performance from S has expired on grounds of impossibility § 275 Ⅰ, 326 Ⅰ | 2 BGB in conjunction with § 615 1, 3 BGB.

                  3. intermediate result
                     E’s claim has lapsed.

               3. intermediate result
                  E does not have an enforceable claim.
            3. intermediate result
               The defense of non-performance of contract is not applicable.
         2. result enforceable claim
            S’s claim is enforceable.
      4. result primary claims
         Sajonji has a claim for payment of the outstanding €3000.
   2. secondary claims
      Secondary claims (e. g. damages) beside primary claims are possible. In particular, because E has no defense, it is possible that there is a claim for statutory default interest (currently 6.62% p. a. [with respect to your pre-tax income]), § 280 Ⅰ, Ⅱ, 286, 288 Ⅰ BGB.
   3. result contractual obligations
      Sajonji has a claim against E for payment of the outstanding €3000 (possibly plus interest) by virtue of the employment contract.
2. tort
   There could be a claim based on § 823 Ⅰ, Ⅱ BGB in conjunction with § 266a Ⅰ StGB. Your damage is the reduced amount forwarded, for instance, to the statutory retirement fund.
3. unjust enrichment
   Any possible enrichment is justified by a. m. contract, thus there are not any claims based on unjust enrichment.
4. result
   Sajonji has a claim against E for payment of €3000 plus interest because of employment contract.

---

PS: There are other similar answers of mine.

• online defamation
• defense against trespasser
• employer considerations (not a full opinion)
• default provider chargeback (merely sketching a solution)

Maybe it is warranted to delete them, too?

Answer 1

Undeleted

That said, most users don't grade or write issue spotters. We have variety of backgrounds on the site. Even experienced users (including the person who flagged it) had difficulty understanding where these facts came from, why they were relevant to the question, and how to read the issues. I'm not sure that makes it too educational, though

Answer 2

Just to echo other answers, and please take this in the spirit it is intended.

One thing I have noticed is that short, punchy posts often fair far better than more detailed, long ones - regardless of either's content. I don't know the reason(s), but it is what is.

In my real-life world, the acronym ABC is valued:

• Accurate

• Brief

• Clear

I don't know enough to comment on the accuracy of your answer under discussion, but it appears to me to be niether brief nor clear. To paraphrase Pat W. - it could do with some concision.

Finally, to add support to this little nugget:

What irritates me the most, however, is the educational uselessness of the other (non-deleted) answers

You are not alone, not just in your particular example but others scattered throughout LawSE. There are a number of answers that, although may offer a common sense / practical response and on occasion just pure guesses, they do not in my opinion meet the requirements for a good answer but get upvoted and/or left open anyway. Again, I don't know the reason(s) but we're a diverse and varied crowd with our own particular thought processes (and idiosyncrasies).

I have, on occasion, downvoted and flagged such answers as low quality only to have my flags declined by moderators

I have since decided to ignore them as unavoidable noise and move on with my life.

Answer 3

I have flagged your answer again and downvoted it.

Your answer is a spot on "Thema verfehlt" (missed the topic of the question), even for German grade school.

Your answer has no connection to the question. If it weren't for your writing style, based on contents alone it looks like you copied it from a totally different question that you keep referreing to, or an AI hallucinated something.

I double checked the question to make sure it wasn't edited and you maybe replied to an earlier edit. But it wasn't. As an answer to that question, your text made zero sense.

Maybe it would have. Maybe you are 100% correct about the laws behind it. But either you make that connection to the question asked in your answer, or my guess is it will be deleted again.

We are not in law school. On Stack Exchange, your answer will be compared to how useful it is in answering the question. And to me, it failed this bar spectacularly. I have no idea what you are talking about and how the facts that are not in the question came into your answer.

Take your "result":

Sajonji has a claim against E for payment of €3000 plus interest because of employment contract.

What the heck? Who is "Sajonji"? Who is "E"? How come you know an absolute sum of 3000€ when no amount of money was ever mentioned in the question? This is as unhelpful as it may come. How does that help answering the OPs question?

More examples of "facts" you completely made up for your answer:

Sajonji and employer E concluded [...] a contract of employment [...] on 2022‑06‑24 obligating E to pay S €3000

No, they did not. This is plain fiction, nowhere to be found in the question. You are just making this up.

Answer 4

The form of this answer is highly non-standard for the following reasons:

• The facts that come out of nowhere.
• The highly nested structure makes it difficult to determine how the paragraphs relate to each other.
• It is unclear what proposition each citation to BGB is meant to support — normally, one would say what a statute requires and then apply it to the circumstances.
• You don't explain the law before diving into analysis (e.g. paragraphs 1.1.3.2.2.2.3.1, 1.1.3.2.2.2.3.2, and 1.1.3.2.2.2.3.3 are not introduced as bearing any relation to paragraph 1.1.3.2.2.2.3).
• There is one section titled "enforceable claim" and another titled "claim enforceable" and another titled "result enforceable claim."
• It seems you have not exercised judgment about what issues are actually likely to be the primary issues in play. Being exhaustive actually can detract from usefulness. This form would not be useful to any reader I have ever produced content for — for a lay reader, colleague, professor, supervising lawyer, client, or a court — I expect all would have found this form incomprehensible.