Facts
A cooperative society (the cooperative) was formed by several people wishing to build a residential building and become owners of their family homes. The cooperative entered into an architect's contract with Z. (the architect), entrusting him with the study and construction of the building, including the supervision of the works.
After the completion of the building, the cooperative noted various defects in the work and brought an action for damages against the architect on the basis of Art. 97 CO, alleging improper performance of the contract. The architect, on the other hand, claimed payment of an outstanding fee.
The Cantonal Court dismissed the cooperative's claim for damages, considering that it had not proven that it had suffered a loss itself. The cooperative then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the contested judgment.
According to case law, when an architect is commissioned to prepare plans, tenders or construction projects, a contract for work is concluded; if he is commissioned with the awarding of contracts and the supervision of the works, it is a mandate; if his mission includes activities falling under both categories, the contract is a mixed one.
In the present case, the contract concluded between the cooperative and the architect was a comprehensive contract, falling under both the…