Facts
The attachment debtor [X.] filed a claim for damages against the attachment creditors [A.] , [B.] , [C.] , [D.] , [E.] , [F.] , [G.] and [H.] pursuant to Art. 273 para. 1 DEBA due to an unjustified attachment. The District Court of Sargans upheld the claim to the requested extent. The Cantonal Court of St. Gallen dismissed the appeal of the defendants and ordered them to pay the owed amount with 5% interest as of 6 March 1997.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Cantonal Court. It stated that the defendants expressly acknowledged the plaintiff's loss resulting from his inability to invest the attached funds according to his investment strategy. The unlawfulness of the attachment was also undisputed, as the action for continuation of the attachment had been dismissed. The adequate causal link between the lost profit and the blocking of the assets was also given.
The plaintiff's conduct did not interrupt the causal link. While the plaintiff would have also needed the consent of the debt collection office for his investment strategy in addition to the consent of the defendants, the defendants had implicitly rejected the plaintiff's specific investment proposal, so an approach to the debt collection office would have been futile. The defendants should have informed themselves through the involvement of a banking expert instead of making the negotiations dependent on this. Their conduct…