Facts
[A.] Switzerland AG (the appellant) sued [B. AG] (the respondent) for damages and reduction of the construction management fee. The dispute concerned the construction of seven [A.] branches in Switzerland, where there were alleged to be moisture damage and cracks. The Commercial Court dismissed the claim. The appellant then filed a civil appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
The Federal Supreme Court partially overturned the judgment and remanded the case to the lower court for re-evaluation. It concluded that the appellant had sufficiently substantiated its submissions regarding various alleged defects (base seals, Swedish cuts, sliding bearings, gradients) as well as the causal link and the damage. However, the appellant was unsuccessful regarding the lower court's findings on the remaining defects, its own technical expertise, the binding nature of the construction descriptions and lead details, and the reduction of the construction management fee.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court stated that the lower court had set the substantiation requirements too high in part. In particular, it could not be expected of the appellant as a layperson to present the technical background and effects of the individual defects in detail at the scientific level. The requirements of the lower court had also been excessive in allocating the remediation costs to the individual defects.
However…