Facts
Spouses X., domiciled in France, maintained a friendship with A., the person responsible for client acquisition at Bank Y. In August 1981, the X. spouses asked A. to open a joint account/deposit with the Bank. In 1987, X. wished to cash in two receivables of 500,000 FF each on his account. In order to keep the transaction secret, A. advised him to have the assets transferred to a transit account, which was allegedly used as an internal account of the Bank. However, the funds were never credited to the X. spouses' account. It was only in 1996 that they discovered that they only had a small asset in their account. In 2002, X. had a payment order of 250,000 CHF served on the Bank, to which an objection was filed. The Cantonal Court of Valais dismissed the claim, upholding the Bank's plea of prescription. X. appealed to the Federal Tribunal.Considerations
The Federal Tribunal first considered that the contested decision was a final decision within the meaning of Art. 48(1) OJ and that the appeal was in principle admissible.
On the applicable law, the Federal Tribunal held that, in the absence of a choice of law, Swiss law was applicable by virtue of Art. 117(1) PILA, the characteristic performance referring to the Bank which has its registered office in Switzerland.
Regarding the statute of limitations, the Federal Tribunal considered that the principal's or…