Facts
The case concerns a lease agreement between X. AG (landlord) and A. (tenant) for restaurant premises. The contract provided for a fixed contract term of three years and an extension option that the tenant could exercise in writing by the end of April 2010. On March 13, 2010, the tenant handed the landlord an unsigned letter in which he declared the extension.
The landlord applied to the District Court to order the tenant to vacate the premises, as the declaration of extension was not validly made due to the lack of a signature. The District Court granted the application, but the High Court overturned the judgment and did not enter into the eviction request.
The landlord filed a complaint with the Federal Court, requesting that the judgment of the High Court be overturned and the first-instance judgment be confirmed.
Considerations
The Federal Court dismissed the complaint, as the requirements for legal protection in clear cases under Art. 257 para. 1 lit. b CPC were not met. A clear legal situation only exists if the application of the law leads to a clear result. This is not the case if the application of a norm requires a discretionary or equitable decision by the court.
In the present case, it had to be examined whether the landlord's reliance on the formal defect was an abuse of rights. For this purpose, not only the circumstances at the time of…