Facts
The case concerns a contract for work between the client B. AG and the contractor A. S.R.L. for the construction of a facade. The contract provided for various interim deadlines, which were not met by the contractor. As a result, the client declared withdrawal from the entire contract, including the part of the facade where there was no delay.
The lower court had considered the client's withdrawal from the entire contract to be permissible. However, the Federal Supreme Court came to a different conclusion:
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court considers the contract for work to be divisible, as the two facade parts (wood/metal and posts/beams) could be manufactured and installed independently of each other. The consideration was also divisible, regardless of the agreed lump-sum price.
The Federal Supreme Court does not see an unreasonableness in continuing the contract for the posts/beams part. Although there were delays and defects in the wood/metal facade, this does not necessarily imply a risk to the posts/beams part, as…