8 CG.2005.183•Revision grounds, proof appreciation, and third-party contract payment
8 CG.2005.183Li Supreme CourtOct 3, 2007
Extracted by Omnilex
The decision addresses several revision-related objections in a civil matter. It clarifies that there is no overclaim when the plaintiff ultimately obtains more than half of the amount originally sued for. It further states that the assessment of evidence, including whether an oral agreement is established from documents, testimony, or party statements, is a matter of free judicial appreciation and cannot be attacked as a revision defect merely because the court inferred facts or preferred one version of the evidence. The court also requires revision grounds to be argued concretely in the body of the application. On the merits of a contract in favor of a third party, the court holds that the beneficiary’s payment need only be determinable and, absent a specific maturity date, is due immediately.
Revision; free appreciation of evidence; factual error; statement of revision grounds; third-party beneficiary contract: An overclaim does not exist if the plaintiff ultimately prevails for more than half of the amount initially claimed. The establishment of an oral agreement, including the choice and weighting of documentary, testimonial, and party evidence, is governed exclusively by free judicial appraisal of evidence. A factual error exists only where a finding lacks any evidentiary basis whatsoever; it is not enough that another finding would also have been possible or that the court drew an inference. Revision grounds must be substantiated specifically in the body of the application and not merely listed abstractly at the outset. For a contract in favor of a third party, it suffices that the amount owed to the beneficiary is determinable; if no specific time of performance is ascertainable, the claim falls due immediately.
8 CG.2005.183
Eine Überklagung liegt dann nicht vor, wenn der Kläger mit mehr als der Hälfte des zunächst eingeklagten Betrages im Ergebnis obsiegt.
Die Frage, aus welchen Gründen und Überlegungen das Gericht eine mündliche Vereinbarung feststellt, ob es dazu schriftliche Dokumente, Zeugen oder Parteiaussagen heranzieht und wie es diese Aussagen gewichtet, ist ausschliesslich eine Frage der freien richterlichen Beweiswürdigung.
Eine Aktenwidrigkeit liegt nur dann vor, wenn für eine Feststellung überhaupt keine beweismässige Grundlage besteht, nicht aber dann, wenn eine allenfalls mögliche Feststellung nicht getroffen oder eine Feststellung durch Schlussfolgerung getroffen wurde.
Die Anführung der Revisionsgründe ist dann nicht ausreichend, wenn nur eingangs der Revision alle möglichen Revisionsgründe angeführt werden, nicht aber die Ausführungen der Revisionsschrift jeweils einen konkreten Bezug auf den geltend gemachten Revisionsgrund beinhalten.
Beim Vertrag zugunsten Dritter genügt die Bestimmbarkeit des an den begünstigten Dritten zu leistenden Geldbetrags.
Ist bei einem Vertrag zugunsten Dritter keine bestimmte Erfüllungszeit feststellbar, dann ist von einer sofortigen Fälligkeit der Leistung an den Dritten auszugehen.
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether the plaintiff had overclaimed by seeking more than the amount ultimately awarded.
No overclaim exists where the plaintiff ultimately succeeds for more than half of the amount initially claimed.
The relevant comparison is between the initial claim and the result; success on more than half of the claimed amount does not constitute overclaiming.
Whether the court’s determination of an oral agreement could be challenged as a revision ground based on how evidence was weighed.
The manner in which the court establishes an oral agreement, and which documents, witnesses, or party statements it relies on and how it weighs them, falls within free judicial appreciation of evidence.
Choice and weighing of evidence are matters of evidentiary assessment, not a revision defect.
Whether an alleged factual error existed because the court made a finding by inference or failed to make a different possible finding.
A factual error exists only if a finding lacks any evidentiary basis at all, not if another possible finding was not adopted or if the finding was reached by inference.
Revision is unavailable for mere disagreement with the inference drawn from evidence; only a finding without any evidentiary basis can amount to an error of record.
Whether the statement of revision grounds was sufficient when only the introduction listed all possible grounds but the body did not link the arguments concretely to each ground.
No; revision grounds must be specifically substantiated in the body of the application with a concrete connection between the argument and the asserted ground.
A generic listing of all possible grounds at the outset is insufficient without targeted reasoning for each invoked ground.
Whether a third-party-beneficiary contract requires a precisely determined amount to be payable to the beneficiary.
It is sufficient that the amount payable to the beneficiary be determinable.
For a contract in favor of a third party, determinability of the payment amount meets the requirement of contractual certainty.
If no specific time of performance is ascertainable in a third-party-beneficiary contract, when is the payment due to the beneficiary?
In the absence of a determinable performance date, the obligation is due immediately.
Where the contract does not establish a specific time for performance, immediate maturity is presumed.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.