Facts
The appellant, a real estate dealer, sold a residential and commercial building in Diessenhofen to the respondent. During the negotiations, a rent index was handed over to the respondent, which, however, did not correspond to the rental agreements in force at the time. The respondent purchased the house for CHF 1,100,000.-- and later claimed that the appellant had made false assurances regarding the rental income. The District Court and the High Court of the Canton of Thurgau ruled in favor of the respondent and ordered the appellant to pay CHF 170,000.--.
The appellant filed a complaint and argued that the High Court had violated the right to evidence under Art. 8 CC, by not questioning his brother as a witness. He also claimed that the anticipated evaluation of evidence was arbitrary and that the lower court had not correctly calculated the rental income.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the complaint and found that the lower court had not violated the right to evidence, as the right to evidence derived from Art. 8 CC does not preclude the rejection of a means of evidence in anticipated evaluation of evidence. The Federal Court also found that the anticipated evaluation of evidence was not arbitrary, as the High Court had reasonably assumed that the statement of the appellant's brother could only be evaluated as a party's allegation.
The Federal Court also confirmed the calculation of the rental income by the lower court…