Facts
The plaintiff [A.] commissioned the defendant [B.] as an architect and construction manager for the renovation of his single-family house. The parties disputed outstanding fee and ancillary cost invoices. The District Court of Meilen dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court of the Canton of Zurich, which also dismissed the claim and confirmed the first instance's cost and compensation arrangement. The plaintiff filed a civil law appeal with the FSCA, requesting that the judgment of the High Court be set aside and his claim be upheld. Alternatively, he requested that the matter be remanded for supplementation of the facts and a new decision.Considerations
The FSCA did not enter into the appeal. It stated that the appellant could not present a legal question of fundamental importance within the meaning of Art. 74 para. 2 lit. a FSCA:
On the one hand, the FSCA had already commented on the scope of the judge's duty to ask questions under Art. 247 para. 1 CPC in simplified proceedings in its judgment 4D_57/2013. The question of whether, in the present case, a reinforced duty to ask questions should have existed despite the appellant's legal representation, merely concerns the application of the law in the individual case and does not constitute a legal question of fundamental importance.
Also, with regard to the interpretation…