Miller Parrot Parrot Case

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Federal court decision
Date of judgment: November 28, 2006
Publication in the official collection: BGE  133 III 257
Wording of the judgment: 4C.180/2005
Legal area: Sales law

In Mealy Amazons Parrot case that has Swiss Federal Court made in detail to distinguish between direct and indirect damage in purchase legal warranty status.

The commercial parrot breeder A bought six Miller Amazon parrots from B in 2003 for CHF 4800. Although the parrots were in quarantine with the seller for several months, they fell ill and died after being stabled at A and subsequently almost all of A's breeding stock Value of approx. CHF 2 million. As later turned out, one bird was infected with the Pacheco virus upon delivery and then infected all the others. The buyer then demanded compensation for all his parrot breeding. The seller, on the other hand, refused on the grounds that he was not at fault and was therefore not responsible for the consequential damage caused by the defect, which could be classified as indirect.

While the seller is responsible for damages that result directly from a legal or material defect regardless of fault, he is only liable for indirect damage if he does not succeed in providing evidence of exculpation. After detailed justification and discussion of the teaching, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed its case law, according to which the distinction between direct and indirect damage must be made based on the length of the causal chain and the consequential damage can also be direct. Only if further causes of damage arise, the damage is to be classified as indirect, whereby the normal use of the thing within the scope of the usual or agreed purpose does not represent such a further cause of damage. In this case, the seller had to bear the consequential damage.

See also

Representative of Art

Meetings

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Art. 195 para. 1 no. 4  OR or Art. 208 Paragraph 2 OR.
  2. ↑ Art. 195 Paragraph 2 OR Art. 208 Paragraph 3 OR.