Facts
The City of [X.] (Appellant) commissioned Civil Engineer [A.] (Respondent 1) to handle the engineering aspects of the load-bearing structure, the execution planning, and the supervision of the construction of the new school building [Q.] . The general contractor work was awarded to [S.] Bauservice AG (Respondent 2). After defects in the building occurred, the contract with Respondent 1 was terminated. The Appellant filed a claim against Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 for compensation of the consequential damage caused by the defects. The Commercial Court dismissed the claim.Considerations
The Federal Court upheld the decision of the Commercial Court. It stated that the contract between the Appellant and Respondent 1 should be qualified as a mixed contract with elements of a contract for work and services and a contract of agency. The planning error underlying the…