Facts
[A.] attended an information event of the appellant X. Corp. on August 29, 2007. On August 30, 2007, the parties signed a contract for further training materials and six seminar days at a price of CHF 6,800. [A.] made a down payment of CHF 4,000. On August 31, 2007, [A.] notified the revocation of the contract and demanded the refund of the down payment made.
B. By a claim filed on November 13, 2009, [A.] requested the refund of CHF 4,000 plus interest. The District Court of Sursee upheld the claim and dismissed the plea of limitation. The High Court of the Canton of Lucerne dismissed an appeal on points of law by the appellant.
C. The appellant filed a civil law appeal with the request to set aside the decision and dismiss the claim.
Considerations
1. The Federal Supreme Court affirmed a legal question of fundamental importance.
3. The dispute revolves around the question of whether the general limitation period under Art. 127 CO or the limitation period under the law of unjust enrichment pursuant to Art. 67 CO applies to the obligation to refund the amount paid by A.
4. According to Art. 40f(1) CO, the customer's revocation of the contract has the consequence that the parties must refund any services already received. The legal nature of these restitution claims must be clarified.
4.1 Unwinding claims are based on the law of unjust enrichment and the law of vindication if services were provided in connection with a contract that did not validly come into existence due to defects in the formation of the contract.
4.2 The Federal Council's message states that a refund under Art. 40f(1) CO is to be made in accordance with the law of unjust enrichment.
4.4 The Federal Supreme Court has not yet expressed itself on the issue of the legal nature of the restitution claims under Art. 40f(1) CO. It examines the case law on…