Facts
[A.] (the appellant) operated an agricultural business until the end of 2016. In the spring of 2012, her mother [C.] concluded a contract with [B.] (the respondent) for the property [X.] , which was referred to as a "loan for use". In this contract, the respondent undertook to allow [C.] to use the plot "for mowing purposes". At the same time, they agreed that [C.] would pay the respondent an annual lump sum of CHF 4,500 for the use of equipment and a transport cable car.
In February 2020, the respondent informed [C.] that he would terminate the contractual relationship as of 31 December 2020. [A.] then filed a lawsuit against the respondent, requesting that the existence of a lease and the nullity or invalidity of the termination be established. Alternatively, the lease should be extended by six years until 31 December 2028.
The Cantonal Court of Obwalden and the High Court of the Canton of Obwalden dismissed the lawsuit. Against the decision of the High Court, [A.] filed a civil law appeal and a subsidiary constitutional appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court did not enter into the civil law appeal, as the appellant did not raise a legal question of fundamental importance. The question of whether it was a loan for use or an agricultural lease has already been clarified. The issue of circumvention of the law under Art. 1 para. 2 LPG also does not require a first-time clarification by the Federal Supreme Court, as it is an established legal institution.
With regard to the subsidiary…