Facts
Landlord [A.] rented an apartment and a parking space to her tenant [B.] . The landlord was represented in the rental agreements by her representative [C.] , who was authorized to represent the landlord vis-à-vis authorities and conciliation boards according to an administrative contract dated August 28, 2006.
In November 2013, [C.] terminated the tenancy. Tenant [B.] then filed a request for protection against termination with the conciliation board. At the conciliation hearing on February 12, 2014, [C.] appeared as the representative of the landlord and concluded a settlement agreement with the tenant, according to which the termination was accepted and the tenancy was extended until June 30, 2015.
Landlord [A.] later applied to the conciliation board to have the settlement agreement and the dismissal of the proceedings set aside, as [C.] had not been authorized in writing to conclude a settlement agreement. However, the conciliation board and the cantonal court dismissed the application for revision.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that the provision in Art. 204 para. 3 lit. c CPC, according to which the representative must be authorized in writing to conclude a settlement agreement, does not serve to protect the parties from unauthorized representation, but to promote the amicable resolution of disputes in the conciliation procedure. Therefore, a party who has been represented cannot subsequently challenge the effectiveness of the settlement agreement concluded by its representative, merely because the requirements of the power of representation under Art. 204 para. 3 lit. c CPC are alleged not to have been met.
W…