Facts
The case concerns a preliminary contract dated December 7, 1983 between Leo K. (plaintiff) and Peter and Martha Z. (defendants) regarding the purchase of a parking space in an underground garage and an outdoor parking space. The defendant claimed that the preliminary contract was not legally binding due to a lack of agreement on essential contractual elements.
The Federal Supreme Court had to decide whether the preliminary contract was validly concluded and whether a direct claim for performance could be filed.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed its previous case law, according to which a preliminary contract is equivalent to the main contract if the same parties are to conclude the main contract provided for in the preliminary contract under the same conditions. In such cases, there is no reasonable ground to distinguish between the preliminary contract and the main contract.
In the present case, the preliminary contract already contained all the essential elements of the main contract, such as the purchase price and the subject matter of the purchase. The form of public certification was also observed. Only the precise allocation of the parking spaces was still open, which the Federal Supreme Court, however, considered to be…