Timely Assertion of a Defect in the Purchase of Real Estate

Facts

- By a publicly notarized contract dated July 2, 2010, [B. AG] sold a property to [A. AG] . In the contract, the seller undertook to have new drainage pipes installed and paid for by October 31, 2010. However, these works were not carried out. - The buyer, [A. AG] , filed a lawsuit and claimed damages. The Cantonal Court ordered the seller to pay, but the High Court overturned this and dismissed the claim. - The buyer filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court. It argued that the contract was partially a sales contract and partially a contract for work, and that the notice of defects was made in a timely manner.

Considerations

- The Federal Supreme Court held that the contract was to be classified as a pure sales contract. The renovation work was part of the transfer of ownership and was therefore rightly assessed under the title of warranty for defects. - Regarding the timeliness of the notice of defects, the Federal Supreme Court concluded that, contrary to the lower instance, it was to be considered timely. Although case law has considered a notice period of one week to be…