Facts
On July 4, 2002, C. was killed in a train accident by a train of B. AG. Her husband A. (plaintiff, appellant) and their children initially received from B. AG declarations on the waiver of the statute of limitations, first from D. (former Head of Operations and Sales of B. AG) on June 18, 2004 and then from E. (clerk in the Operations department) on April 19, 2005. A. and his children subsequently pursued B. AG several times for claims arising from the accident.
On December 21, 2012, A. filed a lawsuit with the Commercial Court of the Canton of Aargau and requested that B. AG be ordered to pay CHF 1,057,362.95 plus interest. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred. The Commercial Court dismissed the claim, as D. and E. had not been authorized to sign the declarations of waiver of the statute of limitations.
A. filed a civil law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that tacit (internal) authorization to represent can also be claimed from acquiescence or appearance. For (internal) apparent authority, it is required that the represented party should have recognized the representative's actions with due diligence and that the representative could in good faith have perceived the represented party's behavior as authorization.
The Federal Supreme Court considers that the lower court has violated federal law by denying (internal) apparent authority of D. and E. Both the declaration of waiver of the statute…