Facts
A. and B. (Plaintiffs) concluded several loan agreements with Bank X. (Defendant), for which a mortgage deed for CHF 500,000.- on the property of B. (Plaintiff 2) served as collateral. After payment default by Plaintiff A., the Defendant initiated debt enforcement proceedings for the realization of the mortgage.
B. The Plaintiffs filed a declaratory action, which was dismissed by the District Court and partially confirmed by the High Court. The Plaintiffs filed a federal appeal against the remaining part of the dismissal of the action.
C. The Plaintiffs claim that Plaintiff 2 was the sole owner of the inventory of the restaurant "Z." in the property S. This property was acquired by the Defendant in 1993 through a forced auction, whereby the lease agreement for the restaurant was transferred to the Defendant. The Defendant then unlawfully presented itself as the landlord of the inventory and received the full rent, although the inventory belonged to Plaintiff 2.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court follows the Plaintiffs and holds that the lower court has violated federal law by denying the Plaintiffs' claim based on the facts alleged by them.
If the Defendant rented out the furniture knowing about Plaintiff 2's ownership, Plaintiff 2 can base her claim on the rules on unauthorized business management (Art. 423 CO). Accordingly, whoever interferes with a foreign legal sphere and thereby makes a profit must reimburse the principal or the legal entity for the…