In two judgments of 8 May 2012 (case refs. XI ZR 437 / 11 and XI ZR 61 / 11) the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) decided that the expenses clause used by banks and savings banks (no. 12 (6) bank T&Cs and no. 18 savings bank T&Cs) is invalid. The BGH found that the clause was not consistent with essential principles of the relevant legislation. According to the law, under a commercial agency agreement a mandatory may only demand reimbursement of expenses it has incurred “for the purpose of performing the mandate” and which it “may consider to be necessary” (section 670 of the German Civil Code [BGB]). These explanatory details were lacking in the clauses in question. In future, a corresponding amendment will therefore be required in expenses clauses, unless banks and savings banks drop such clauses altogether because they would then merely reflect the normal statutory situation.