Facts
On 26 March 1998, A. (the defendant) concluded a credit card contract with X. AG (the plaintiff). According to the general terms and conditions, the plaintiff established a monthly invoice for the operations carried out, which became due upon receipt. At the request of the defendant, the invoices were paid by direct debit from her bank account. On 25 July 2000, the plaintiff's claim amounted to 34,182.20 francs. The defendant paid 30,182.20 francs on 18 October 2000, without explaining the difference of 4,000 francs. The plaintiff reimbursed the 30,182.20 francs on 27 December 2000 without explanation. After a telephone conversation, the defendant confirmed in writing that the balance had been settled. However, on 19 December 2002, the plaintiff informed the defendant that the reimbursement had been made by error and that the claim of 34,182.20 francs was still open. The defendant paid the remaining 4,000 francs after an exchange of letters.
The plaintiff brought an action before the Zurich District Court to recover 29,830.15 francs, as well as the costs of the proceedings. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had waived her claim and that, otherwise, the claim was prescribed under the law on unjust enrichment. The Zurich District and Appeal Courts rejected these arguments and ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined whether the plaintiff's claim was prescribed under the law on unjust enrichment. The Court considered that the plaintiff's claim arose from an erroneous payment and that, therefore, the applicable prescription was that of unjust enrichment, and not contractual prescription.
The Court recalled that, according to case law, a payment made by error does not constitute a contractual performance, but rather a performance without legal basis, which must be returned under the law on unjust enrichment. The Court also emphasized that the qualification of a claim must be determined based on the actual situation and…