Facts
The plaintiff, a professional parrot breeder, purchased six Amazon parrots from the defendant Müller. These parrots fell ill and died at the buyer's premises, which led to the illness of almost his entire breeding stock. Based on expert opinions, the buyer concluded that one of the acquired parrots was infected with the Pacheco virus, which then spread to his breeding stock. Subsequently, the buyer requested a refund of the purchase price and damages, and initiated debt collection proceedings against the seller for an amount of 2,000,000 Swiss francs plus 5% interest from August 2, 2000. The seller did not file an objection. The seller (hereinafter the plaintiff) then filed an action for a declaratory judgment under Art. 85a DEBA with the District Court of Arbon, seeking to establish that the claim of 2,000,000 Swiss francs plus 5% interest from August 2, 2000 pursued by the buyer (hereinafter the defendant) did not exist. The plaintiff also requested a provisional stay of the debt collection proceedings. On August 9, 2004, the plaintiff's bankruptcy was declared.Considerations
The Federal Tribunal considers that the action for a declaratory judgment based on Art. 85a DEBA is a substantive law action that constitutes a civil dispute of a pecuniary nature. Consequently, a decision rendered in the final cantonal instance in such a case may be the subject of an appeal for reform to the Federal Tribunal, if the required dispute value is reached.
When the plaintiff is declared bankrupt, he loses the capacity to be a party to the action filed under Art. 85a DEBA, and the debt collection proceedings that gave rise to it are extinguished, unless the bankruptcy is suspended due to lack of…