Facts
The spouses [H.] owned a lamp by Emile Gallé, for which [A.] offered them 15,000 francs on November 29, 1977. The owners initially wanted to have the lamp appraised by experts. In early December 1977, they therefore contacted [S. AG] in Zurich, where Mrs. [H.] was received by Miss V. On December 6, Mrs. [H.] wrote a letter to the firm [S.] in Zurich, requesting that the lamp be appraised by an expert in London. The photograph of the lamp was forwarded to London on December 7. On December 9, Miss V. informed Mrs. [H.] that the appraised price was the equivalent of 8,000 to 12,000 francs. The spouses [H.] then sold the lamp to [A.] on December 17 for 16,500 francs.
In early February 1978, it was discovered that the lamp was a unique piece, worth 30,000 to 40,000 francs. The spouses [H.] then sued [S. AG] in Zurich for 233,500 francs in damages.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that there was a contractual relationship between the parties and that the defendant is liable for the conduct of its auxiliary persons. The defendant had accepted the plaintiffs' request and undertaken to have the lamp appraised by an expert in London.
While the agent can generally call in a third party to perform the mandate, he is then liable under Art. 101 CO for the latter's conduct if he has called in the third party in his own interest. This was the case here, as the defendant had involved the…