Refusal to consider appeal against a cantonal decision based on Swiss law as subsidiary law

Facts

The dispute opposes Mr. Sessler, owner of Sicomatic A.-G., and Oskar Swan, who concluded an agreement on January 18, 1955, to create a company that was to conclude a licensing agreement with Sicomatic A.-G. for the exploitation of a patent. The English company paid an advance of 10'000 pounds sterling to Sicomatic A.-G. in December 1955. Subsequently, Swan handed over an additional 10'000 pounds sterling to Sessler personally in 1956. Sessler acknowledged having received a loan of 10'000 pounds sterling from Swan, payable in six months in Switzerland with 120'000 Swiss francs.

The district court of Baden rejected Sessler's request to contest the validity of the loan agreement, and the cantonal court of Aargau confirmed this decision. The Federal Court annulled the cantonal decision and referred the case for a new decision, as the cantonal court had not indicated whether its decision was based on federal or cantonal law.

The cantonal court again rejected Sessler's request, considering that the parties had chosen Swiss law tacitly. The Federal Court examined this decision and concluded that the parties had not chosen Swiss law tacitly.

Considerations

The Federal Court examined the question of the law applicable to the loan contract between the parties. It considered that the parties had not chosen Swiss law tacitly, as they had not clearly expressed their intention to choose this law. The cantonal court had considered that the parties had chosen Swiss law tacitly, but the Federal Court rejected this interpretation.

The Federal Court also considered that the…