Facts
[A. AG] (Plaintiff) is the owner of a property in [W.] . On 8/25 June 2001, it concluded a contract designated as a lease agreement with [B. SA] (Defendant), under which the Defendant was allowed to use part of the property for the installation, operation and maintenance of a telecommunications system. The contract was limited until 31 December 2011, but contained a termination clause for important reasons. On 28 January 2002, the Plaintiff terminated the contract prematurely, as the population of [W.] strongly opposed the planned radio system, which had a negative impact on its business. The District Court of Dorneck-Thierstein upheld the claim for declaration of contract termination. However, the High Court of the Canton of Solothurn dismissed the claim, as it did not see any important reasons for an extraordinary termination.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the High Court. It stated that the contract was rightly qualified as a lease agreement and not as a building lease agreement. The fact that the Defendant was to remain the owner of the installed facilities did not change this. Even if the facilities were to be classified as permanent structures, this would not categorize the contract as a building lease agreement.
Regarding the termination, the Federal Supreme Court found that the reaction of the village population to the planned mobile phone system was foreseeable for the Plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the contract. Therefore, there was no important reason for…