Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
II 2024 93 • VG SZ II 2024 93 KI-generiert

Plaintiff's Termination Precludes Damages Claim After Alleged Breach

Geschäftsnummer II 2024 93
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Schweiz · Kanton Schwyz (CH-SZ)
Entscheiddatum

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

A plaintiff, seeking damages after a contract termination concerning the purchase of real estate, appealed a decision that dismissed the claim, arguing that the defendant unilaterally breached the contract by demanding payment installments contrary to the agreed-upon terms. The court reasoned that the defendant's demand for payment, while potentially constituting a breach, did not definitively terminate the contract as the plaintiff could have fulfilled the payment terms under protest or sought performance enforcement, and since the plaintiff instead terminated the contract first, the plaintiff's own termination precluded the subsequent claim for damages based on the defendant's alleged prior breach.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Plaintiff's Termination Precludes Damages Claim After Alleged Breach: The court reasoned that the defendant's demand for payment, while potentially constituting a breach, did not definitively terminate the contract as the plaintiff could have fulfilled the payment terms under protest or sought performance enforcement, and since the plaintiff instead terminated the contract first, the plaintiff's own termination precluded the subsequent claim for damages based on the defendant's alleged prior breach.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Kündigung eines Vertrags Schadenersatzzahlung Immobilienvermögen Ratenzahlungen Vollstreckungsentscheid Pflichtverletzung des Vermieters
KI-generiert

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n II 2024 93 |\n |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Urteil vom 20. März 2025 |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n lic.iur. Achilles Humbel, Präsident |\n \n|\n |\n Dr.oec. Andreas Risi, Richter Dr.iur. Frank Lampert, Richter |\n \n|\n |\n MLaw Marco Lacher, Gerichtsschreiber |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Parteien |\n A.________, \n Klägerin, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt Dr.iur. B.________, |\n \n|\n |\n gegen |\n \n|\n |\n C.________AG, \n Beklagte, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwältin lic.iur. D.________, |\n \n\n

\n