Plaintiff had entered into a timesharing contract through an agent whom he (also) had assigned himself. The agent had falsely stated plaintiff's usage rights would be safeguarded by registration in the land register. Trusting the agent, plaintiff didn't read the contract carefully. As there was no registration of his rights he contested the validity of the contract based on deception. Austrian Supreme Court in decision 6 Ob 109/09m of July 2, 2009 confirmed judgements of the lower instances attributing the misrepresentation by the agent to the timeshare contractor.