Facts
Husband and wife [A.] and [B.] are owners of property [X.] in [Y.] and hold all shares of [C. SA] , which operates a wine business in this property. On 17 April 2001, husband and wife [A.] and [B.] (hereinafter: landlords), and [D.] (hereinafter: tenant) and [C. SA] signed a contract referred to as a rental agreement, which included an exclusive wine purchase obligation of the tenant with [C. SA] .
On 23 September 2003, the landlords terminated the rental agreement with official form on 31 March 2004, as the tenant had breached the wine purchase obligation. The tenant requested that the termination be declared null and void or, alternatively, that the rental agreement be extended by at least five years.
The High Court of the Canton of Aargau dismissed the tenant's appeal and confirmed the termination. The tenant filed a federal appeal with the requests to overturn the judgment of the High Court and to dismiss the complaint.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined whether the termination of the rental agreement due to breach of the wine purchase obligation was admissible. It found that the wine purchase obligation was an essential part of the rental agreement and that the landlords would not have concluded the rental agreement without this obligation.
The court found that the tenant's breach of the wine purchase obligation constituted an important reason for termination, as the landlords had a legitimate interest in the fulfillment of this obligation. It also pointed out that the termination did not occur due to a disparity between performance and consideration, as the tenant had a legitimate interest in purchasing wine from [C. SA] .
The court also examined whether the extension of the rental agreement was admissible.…