Facts
On June 23, 2009, [A.] as the tenant entered into a lease agreement for a commercial premises with [C.C.] and [D.C.] as the landlords. [A.] converted the retail space into a dental practice and made numerous modifications and renovations to the leased property. On November 2, 2011, the retail space was auctioned off by the debt collection office, with [B.] being the successful bidder. [A.] then terminated the lease effective June 30, 2012. Upon termination of the lease, [A.] was unable to reach an agreement with [B.] regarding additional compensation for the renovations and modifications.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court held that the investments made by [A.] in the PVC flooring, the partition wall cladding, the plumbing installations, and the window films did not result in any objective added value within the meaning of Art. 260a(3) of the Swiss Code of Obligations. The flooring and the partition wall cladding would need to be renewed upon termination of the lease and therefore do not represent any added value. The other investments were made solely to meet the specific needs of [A.] as the tenant of a dental practice…