Facts

The appellant (seller, plaintiff) and the respondent (buyer, defendant) concluded on 11 February 2017 a purchase option agreement concerning the agricultural holding [U.] (plots Nos. uuu, vvv, www, xxx, yyy and zzz, land register [W.] ). The time-limited, transferable and heritable purchase option ran until 31 December 2023 and was granted free of charge. The purchase price was set at CHF 213'000.-- and was to be paid by assumption of the mortgage debts encumbering the property. In addition, the buyer undertook to grant a free-of-charge, lifelong right of residence in the 4 ½-room apartment in residential building No. ttt, as well as in the common rooms and the surrounding grounds.

For chattels and inventory, a separate sales contract dated 1 February 2017 was concluded, the purchase price of which was to be included in the amount of the purchase option agreement. On 3 April 2017 the buyer assumed the mortgage debts; on 11 April 2017 the seller confirmed the full settlement of the purchase price.

By action dated 20 March 2018 filed with the District Court of Willisau, the seller sought deletion of the land register annotation of the purchase option, a declaration that the inventory sales contract was non-binding on grounds of exploitation and error, surrender of the inventory, eviction from the apartment, barn and shed, and a prohibition on entry backed by the threat of penalty under Art. 292 SCC. The District Court dismissed the action by judgment of 16 August 2019. The Cantonal Court of Lucerne upheld this by judgment of 26 March 2020: it denied incapacity to act, exploitation (distress, inexperience and exploitation not established; moreover ratification), basic error under Art. 24 para. 1 no. 4 CO and immorality under Art. 20 CO. A sale of the inventory likewise could not be denied.

By civil law appeal dated 19 May 2020, the seller requested the annulment of the cantonal judgment, alternatively remittal, and free legal aid. No responses were invited.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court applies the law of its own motion (Art. 106 para. 1 FSCA), but is bound by the findings of fact unless these are manifestly incorrect (arbitrary) (Art. 105 FSCA). For complaints concerning the facts, the strict principle of complaint under Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA applies.

On capacity to act (Arts. 13 and 16 CC), the Federal Supreme Court held that capacity of judgment is presumed, and whoever disputes it must prove the weakened states under Art. 16 CC and their effects, which also implies substantiated allegation. The appellant had only invoked dependence on the respondent's family in the appeal proceedings; her general references to her state of health were insufficient. The complaints of violation of the right to be heard (Art. 53 CPC) and of the right to present evidence (Art. 152 para. 1 CPC) were unfounded.

On exploitation (Art. 21 CO), the Federal Supreme Court clarified that objectively an evident disproportion and subjectively an impairment of freedom of decision (distress, inexperience or levity) as well as exploitation must cumulatively be present. Distress requires serious hardship and an objectively justifiable weighing of interests; fault for the distress is immaterial, but here there was no distress because of the threatened prohibition on keeping animals in view of the temporal circumstances (more than three years between the threat and the order). The complaint against this was dismissed as misconceiving the concept.

As regards inexperience, the appellant rightly complained that the lower court wrongly mixed the aspect of error with inexperience. The complaint is justified, but does not lead to success, because specific inexperience with regard to the concrete transaction (agricultural holding) was not alleged; inexperience in social insurance matters (supplementary benefits) is…