Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
III 2016 188 • VG SZ III 2016 188 KI-generiert

Contractual Dispute Appeal Dismissal

Geschäftsnummer III 2016 188
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Schweiz · Kanton Schwyz (CH-SZ)
Entscheiddatum
Originalquelle öffnen Entscheidsuche-Spiegel Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The case involves an appeal against a prior decision concerning a contractual dispute where one party sought damages related to an agreement. The court reasoned that for the appeal to succeed, the appellant had to demonstrate that the lower court's findings of fact were demonstrably incorrect or that the application of the law was flawed; however, as the appellant failed to sufficiently contest the material facts established by the lower authority or show a clear error in the legal assessment applied to those facts, the appeal was ultimately dismissed.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Contractual Dispute Appeal Dismissal: The court reasoned that for the appeal to succeed, the appellant had to demonstrate that the lower court's findings of fact were demonstrably incorrect or that the application of the law was flawed; however, as the appellant failed to sufficiently contest the material facts established by the lower authority or show a clear error in the legal assessment applied to those facts, the appeal was ultimately dismissed.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
vertraglicher Schadenersatz Streitgegenstand ungerechtfertigte Entlassung Sachverhaltsirrtum offensichtliches Versehen anfechtbarer Zwischenentscheid
KI-generiert
ZK1 2022 44
Contractual Liability Appeal Dismissal
ZK1 2016 8
Appeal of Contractual Debt Dispute Dismissed
I 2024 59
Contractual Dispute Appeal Against Corporation Ruling
II 2020 111
Contract Dispute Affirmation Appeal
ZK1 2020 30
Vehicle Purchase Contract Dispute Appeal Dismissal

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 III 2016 188 |\n |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 29. Mai 2017 |\n \n\n

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

\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n Dr.iur. Vital Zehnder, Vizepräsident |\n \n|\n |\n Ruth Mikšovic-Waldis, Richterin Monica Huber-Landolt, Richterin |\n \n|\n |\n lic.iur. Josef Mathis, Gerichtsschreiber |\n \n\n

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

\n\n| | |

|\n Parteien |\n H.________, \n Beschwerdeführerin, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt lic.iur. Peter Krebs, \n Täfernhof, Mellingerstrasse 207, 5405 Baden-Dättwil, |\n

\n|\n |\n gegen |\n

\n|\n |\n 1. B.________, \n Vorinstanz, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt lic.iur. Christian Michel, \n Breitenstrasse 16, 8852 Altendorf, |\n

\n\n

\n