I think it is quite possible the the buyer didnt do sufficient homework. It is also quite possible that the seller had reasonable grounds to think that everything is in order but got side swiped by German bureocracy. It is also possible that the buyer wanted to take advantage of a simple mistake and started yelling "fraud!". Maybe he would have fared much better had he saught legal advice before entering such a large financial commitment, and saved himself the time and effort of going to court.

that is a truck-load of assumptions

possibilities*

yet accusation of fraud is not an assumption?

I think it's fair to say that an accusation in court is not an assumption, yes.

you must have an assumption in order to have an accusation, what's not clear?

Someone bringing a suit will typically research things quite well and not have assumptions about core elements by the time they file. And sometimes there never was speculation at all. What do you mean "must"?

More to the point, even if you want to call it an assumption a median lawsuit is a lot more thorough than something a commenter guesses offhand as they post. The two are leagues apart whether or not you use the same word.

I don't think you know what assumption means. Let me help you out. He assumed they commited fraud. Based on that assumption he took them to court. He reasearched his case so well that, by the sound of it, the judge laughed him out of the court with a personal anecdote. He then went to HN to bad mouth the judge assuming he is incompetant. Much research