Rejection of the claim due to abuse of rights

Facts

The company Exchange Finanz AG (now Grufina AG) sold blocked marks in 1951 on behalf of its client Raimund Vogel. The latter disputed having given a mandate for these sales and refused to provide the necessary blocked marks. Exchange Finanz therefore had to obtain the blocked marks through hedging purchases, incurring a loss of 24,785 Swiss francs, which it charged to Vogel's Swiss franc account. Vogel contested this charge and repeatedly, without success, requested payment of the retained amount. In 1961, he initiated debt collection proceedings to interrupt the statute of limitations, but then left the matter pending until 1965, when he filed a claim for payment of the amount of 24,785 Swiss francs.

Considerations

The Federal Tribunal rejects Vogel's claim on the grounds that the excessive delay in the exercise of his right constitutes an abuse of rights. Although the ordinary 10-year statute of limitations under Art. 127 CO had not expired, the Tribunal considers that the fact that Vogel waited more than 14 years before taking legal action, without valid reason, with the manifest purpose of making it more difficult for the Grufina company to provide evidence, is contrary to the rules of good faith and constitutes an abuse of rights within the meaning of Art. 2 CC.

However, the Federal Tribunal refers…