Facts
In 1971, Paul [T.] commissioned architects Markus and Christoph G. to plan and execute two multi-family houses on a plot of land in A. As the land was not initially ready for construction, the building permit was not granted until 1975. At the request of the client [T.], the construction project was suspended, and the building permit was extended until 1977. On December 23, 1977, [T.] sold the property, including the approved construction project, to a third party without transferring the architect's contract.
The architects issued an invoice for their work on August 15, 1979 and sued [T.] for the outstanding payment. The District Court of Arlesheim partially upheld the claim, whereupon [T.] filed an appeal. The High Court of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft reduced the amount, whereupon the architects filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed that the architect's contract is subject to the rules of the mandate according to Art. 404 para. 1 CO. Since [T.] terminated the contract by selling the property without transferring the architect's contract, the architects are entitled to the 15% fee surcharge provided for in Art. 8.1 of the SIA Standard 102, provided that the proven damage exceeds this percentage.
However, the Federal Supreme Court found that Art. 404 para. 2 CO excludes a claim for compensation for…