Regarding the correct recipient, there is still the issue with the authorized recipients. How large can the administrative apparatus of such a franchisee possibly be? I would think, probably, exaggeratedly speaking, that accounting, legal department, and construction supervision are combined in one person. In other words: if I am not dealing directly with a global corporation, presumably receipt at the central mailroom is sufficient for a valid revocation.
That is exactly what it is about: the franchisee himself is a master bricklayer by training and not a lawyer, and his own small business is far too small to have its own employed legal counsel. That is precisely why the legislator gives him the possibility, in the revocation instruction, to specify where the revocation is to be directed. The revocation instruction is part of the contract – the client has thus acknowledged which provision regarding the recipient of the revocation has been agreed upon. He would have had the freedom to cross out the pre-printed text and negotiate to send the revocation directly to the non-lawyer master bricklayer – but then the latter would have had the freedom (and probably would have used it) to not enter into the contract. That the contractor wants to be represented as the recipient of the revocation by a legally knowledgeable authorized recipient is – as far as it was part of the revocation instruction – acceptable and binding for both contracting parties. Every judge can have his own view on this, as long as his higher regional court does not have a differing one: he can see it as an agreement between the two contracting parties that is not immoral and was made by fully competent participants and thus binding on both; or he can be partial to the consumer and consider it appropriate to interpret the agreement as "deliveries are
requested exclusively to the authorized representative" – which is not the same as "... are
valid exclusively to the authorized representative." Conversely, regardless of whether the judge or the entire chamber got out of bed on the left or right foot, if the client addresses the revocation according to the agreement, the recipient must accept this delivery as valid against themselves. Mind you: I am expressing my opinion as an experienced businessman but not as a lawyer.