Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
II 2024 93 • VG SZ II 2024 93 Généré par l'IA

Plaintiff's Termination Precludes Damages Claim After Alleged Breach

Numéro de cause II 2024 93
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Schwytz (CH-SZ)
Date de la décision

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

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.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

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.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
résiliation de contrat versement de dommages-intérêts biens immeubles paiements par acomptes décision d'exécution manquement du bailleur
Généré par l'IA

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

\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