Facts
The case concerns a contract between the operator of a cabaret-dancing establishment (X.) and the leader of an orchestra ([S.]), under which the "Drive Quintet" orchestra was to perform at the cabaret for one month. During the term of the contract, [S.] replaced one of the five musicians with another musician. When X. learned of this, he demanded that [S.] either play with only four musicians or stop performing altogether. When [S.] refused, X. terminated the contract without notice and paid [S.] partial remuneration. [S.] subsequently sued for payment of the full remuneration for the agreed contract term. The Cantonal Court of Neuchâtel ordered X. to pay the outstanding portion of the remuneration pursuant to Art. 337c(1) of the Swiss Code of Obligations, as the contract had been terminated by the employer without valid reason. X. appealed against this judgment.Considerations
1. The Federal Supreme Court first examined the legal classification of the contract between X. and [S.] and concluded that it was an employment contract ("tiered employment relationship"). The decisive factors were the elements of being bound by instructions and subordination, which were clearly expressed in the present contract. 2. The Federal Supreme Court rejected X.'s argument that [S.] had left the contract without valid reason. It found that X. had terminated the contract unilaterally and without notice, which opened the scope of application of Art. 337c of the Swiss Code of…