Facts
The plaintiff Karl Siegenthaler operates a small watch factory in Recherswil (SO). On May 30, 1962, his son-in-law Josef Kaiser placed an order with the defendant, George S. May Management Intercol AG in Zug, for a preliminary investigation for 400 CHF. Subsequently, the defendant persuaded the plaintiff to place a further order for an "external sales plan" to be remunerated at a rate of 100 CHF per hour. The plaintiff paid a total of 12,066 CHF to the defendant, but was not satisfied with the results of the work and felt exploited.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, requesting that the defendant be ordered to repay him a sum at the court's discretion due to exploitation. The Cantonal Court and the High Court of the Canton of Zug obliged the defendant to repay the plaintiff 11,466 CHF plus interest, as the second contract of June 14, 1962 was deemed unenforceable for the plaintiff due to exploitation.
Considerations
According to Article 21 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (OR), exploitation occurs when a contract creates an obvious disproportion between the performance and the consideration, and the conclusion of the contract was brought about by one party exploiting the other party's distress, inexperience or recklessness.
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the assessment of the lower courts that there was an obvious disproportion between the defendant's performance and the agreed hourly rate of 100 CHF. The defendant had only…