Kommentar zu Art. 150 OR

Ein Kom­men­tar von Jean-Pas­cal Stoll

Her­aus­ge­ge­ben von Chris­toph Hur­ni und Mir­jam Eggen

Zitier­vor­schlag

Jean-Pas­cal Stoll, Kom­men­tar zu Art. 150 OR, in: Chris­toph Hur­ni / Mir­jam Eggen (Hrsg.), Online­kom­men­tar zum Obli­ga­tio­nen­recht, https://onlinekommentar.ch/or150/, 1. Aufl., N. XXX zu Art. 150 OR (besucht am XXX). 

Kurz­zi­tat: OK-Stoll, N. XXX zu Art. 149 OR.

Art. 150 CO

1 Mul­ti­ple credi­tors beco­me joint and several credi­tors whe­re the deb­tor sta­tes that he wis­hes to grant each of them the right to recei­ve full per­for­mance of the debt and in the cases pre­scri­bed by law.

2 Per­for­mance made to one joint and several credi­tor dischar­ges the deb­tor as against all of them.

3 The deb­tor may choo­se which joint and several credi­tor he makes the pay­ment to, pro­vi­ded none of them has initia­ted legal pro­cee­dings against him.

Art. 150 OR

1 Soli­da­ri­tät unter meh­re­ren Gläu­bi­gern ent­steht, wenn der Schuld­ner erklärt, jeden ein­zel­nen auf die gan­ze For­de­rung berech­ti­gen zu wol­len sowie in den vom Geset­ze bestimm­ten Fällen.

2 Die Leis­tung an einen der Soli­dar­gläu­bi­ger befreit den Schuld­ner gegen­über allen.

3 Der Schuld­ner hat die Wahl, an wel­chen Soli­dar­gläu­bi­ger er bezah­len will, solan­ge er nicht von einem recht­lich belangt wor­den ist.

Art. 150 CO

1 Il y a soli­da­ri­té ent­re plu­sieurs cré­an­ciers, lors­que le débi­teur décla­re con­fé­rer à cha­cun d’eux le droit de deman­der le paiement inté­gral de la cré­an­ce, et lors­que cet­te soli­da­ri­té est pré­vue par la loi.

2 Le paiement fait à l’un des cré­an­ciers soli­dai­res libè­re le débi­teur envers tous.

3 Le débi­teur a le choix de payer à l’un ou à l’autre, tant qu’il n’a pas été pré­ve­nu par les pour­sui­tes de l’un d’eux.

Art. 150 CO

1 Vi ha soli­da­rie­tà fra credi­to­ri, quan­do il debi­to­re dichia­ri la volon­tà di auto­riz­za­re cias­cu­no di essi a pre­ten­de­re l’intero credi­to e nei casi deter­mi­na­ti dal­la legge.

2 Il paga­men­to fat­to ad uno dei credi­to­ri soli­da­li libe­ra il debi­to­re in con­fron­to di tutti.

3 Il debi­to­re, fin­ché non sia sta­to giudi­zi­alm­en­te con­ven­uto da uno dei credi­to­ri soli­da­li, può a sua scel­ta paga­re a chi­unque di essi.


I. Definition and differentiation

1 In the case of joint and several credi­tors, mul­ti­ple credi­tors stand against one deb­tor. Each credi­tor has its own inde­pen­dent claim to ful­film­ent of the ent­i­re per­for­mance.[1] Accord­in­gly, the­re are several claims of a sin­gle owed per­for­mance.[2] This is the inver­si­on of the joint and several obli­ga­ti­on.[3] The deb­tor in turn is ful­ly dischar­ged vis-à-vis the other credi­tors by the full per­for­mance to only one joint and several credi­tor (Art. 150 para. 2 CO).[4]

2 The joint and several credi­tor­s­hip must be dis­tin­guis­hed from other con­stel­la­ti­ons in which a deb­tor faces several credi­tors. In the case of collec­ti­ve credi­tors,[5] the credi­tors are enti­t­led to the ent­i­re claim undi­vi­ded­ly. They can only assert the claim collec­tively. At the same time, the deb­tor can only dischar­ge him- or herself by per­forming collec­tively to all of the credi­tors.[6] In the case of par­ti­al credi­tor­s­hip, each credi­tor can act alo­ne but can only claim the part of the claim to which they are enti­t­led. The par­ti­al claims final­ly form the owed who­le.[7] In the case of credi­tor cumu­la­ti­on, the deb­tor owes the same per­for­mance to several credi­tors. The credi­tors can be com­ple­te­ly inde­pen­dent of each other. Whe­ther the credi­tor can satisfy all credi­tors by a sin­gle per­for­mance depends on the natu­re of the con­tract.[8] The type of credi­tor­s­hip in the indi­vi­du­al case depends on the con­trac­tu­al agree­ment with the deb­tor.[9]

II. Origin

A. By statement of intent

3 As Art. 150 para. 1 CO sta­tes, joint and several credi­tor­s­hip may ari­se if the deb­tor decla­res that they intend to enti­t­le each credi­tor to the ent­i­re claim. Without such a decla­ra­ti­on, only par­ti­al credi­tor­s­hip app­lies among the credi­tors, pro­vi­ded that the per­for­mance is divi­si­ble.[10] Howe­ver, the sole cir­cum­s­tance that several per­sons enter into a con­tract tog­e­ther does not estab­lish joint and several credi­tor­s­hip by its­elf.[11] The decla­ra­ti­on of intent may be expres­sed expli­ci­tly[12] or implied.[13] It is not sub­ject to any par­ti­cu­lar form (cf. Art. 11 para. 1 CO).[14]

4 Prac­ti­cal examp­les of joint and several credi­tor­s­hips are the joint account (“comp­te-joint”) with several indi­vi­du­al signa­to­ries,[15] the joint depo­sit (“dépôt con­joint”)[16] or the joint ten­an­cy agree­ment of spou­ses.[17]

B. By law

5 Even though Swiss civil law does not expli­ci­tly pro­vi­de for joint and several credi­tors, the­re are a few indi­vi­du­al legal pro­vi­si­ons that do so impli­ci­tly. Thus, in the case of a majo­ri­ty of donors, each donor alo­ne may demand the ful­film­ent of a pro­vi­sio from the reci­pi­ent (Art. 246 para. 1 CO),[18] the landlord and the ten­ant may both demand of the sub­ten­ant alo­ne that they do not use the pro­per­ty in a man­ner that dif­fers from that per­mit­ted to the ten­ant him- or herself (Art. 262 para. 3 CO; ana­lo­gous­ly in the case of usufruc­tua­ry lea­se, Art 291 para. 3 CO).[19] Fur­ther­mo­re, the princi­pal may assert the claims to which the agent is enti­t­led against a sub­sti­tu­te direct­ly against the lat­ter (Art. 399 para. 3 CO).[20] Art. 70 para. 1 CO pro­vi­des for a joint and several credi­tor­s­hip in the case of indi­vi­si­ble per­for­mance owed to several credi­tors. The per­for­mance can be clai­med by each credi­tor alo­ne.[21] Accord­ing to Art. 482 para. 1 CC, any inte­res­ted par­ty may demand the ful­film­ent of bur­dens and con­di­ti­ons of a tes­ta­men­ta­ry dis­po­si­ti­on.[22]

III. External relationship

6 If the deb­tor per­forms to a joint and several credi­tor, they are also dischar­ged regar­ding the other credi­tors (Art. 150 para. 2 CO). Sur­ro­ga­te per­for­man­ces – inclu­ding depo­sit or set-off – are equi­va­lent to actu­al per­for­mance.[23] As alrea­dy men­tio­ned, each indi­vi­du­al credi­tor may also demand per­for­mance as a who­le or may dis­po­se of it at their dis­cre­ti­on. Acts of dis­po­si­ti­on only affect the claim of the indi­vi­du­al credi­tor against the deb­tor. Acquit­tal, defer­ment, assign­ment, debt enfor­ce­ment or lawsuits by a credi­tor have no influ­ence on the claims of the other credi­tors.[24] Thus, the deb­tor can also only rai­se tho­se objec­tions against a credi­tor that con­cern the rela­ti­ons­hip bet­ween the two of them.[25] Final­ly, each claim may also have its own due date and a noti­ce of default also only affects the rela­ti­ons­hip bet­ween the deb­tor and the acting joint and several credi­tor.[26]

7 A credi­tor may not aggra­va­te the posi­ti­on of the other joint and several credi­tors by their per­so­nal actions (Art. 146 CO ana­lo­gous­ly). An accep­t­ance in lieu of per­for­mance, a nova­ti­on or the accep­t­ance of a chan­ge of deb­tor does not release the deb­tor in regard to the other joint and several credi­tors.[27] Howe­ver, if a joint and several credi­tor is in defaults of accep­t­ance, the co-credi­tors are also affec­ted by it. The deb­tor is not restric­ted by one creditor’s default in his right to choo­se to which credi­tor they want to per­form. If necessa­ry, they may resort to a depo­sit accord­ing to Art. 92 CO (cf. Art. 150 para. 3 CO).[28]

8 In princip­le, the deb­tor is free to choo­se to which credi­tor they want to per­form.[29] Howe­ver, this right of choice is sus­pen­ded if the deb­tor has alrea­dy been sub­jec­ted to legal pro­cee­dings by a joint and several credi­tor (Art. 150 para. 3 CO). In this case, the deb­tor can only pay with dischar­ging effect to the credi­tor who has rai­sed a debt enfor­ce­ment or a lawsu­it.[30] A mere writ­ten demand for pay­ment or a trans­fer order in case of a joint account[31] is not suf­fi­ci­ent to give effect to Art. 150 para. 3 CO.[32] The debtor’s right of choice is revi­ved if the lawsu­it of the one credi­tor suing is dis­mis­sed. If the deb­tor is sub­ject to debt enfor­ce­ment by a joint and several credi­tor, the debtor’s right of choice is res­to­red as of the time when the deb­tor filed an objec­tion accord­ing to Art. 74 DEBA. If the credi­tor sub­se­quent­ly initia­tes clearan­ce to pro­ceed, the debtor’s right to choo­se is again restric­ted.[33]

IV. Internal relationship

9 The law does not sta­te how the inter­nal rela­ti­ons­hip bet­ween the joint and several credi­tors is regu­la­ted if a joint and several credi­tor has recei­ved more than they are enti­t­led to. The rights of recour­se among the joint and several credi­tors are the­re­fo­re gover­ned by the under­ly­ing rela­ti­ons­hip accord­ing to which the joint and several credi­tor­s­hip was estab­lis­hed.[34] The natu­re of legal rela­ti­ons­hip among the joint and several credi­tors or the inter­nal divi­si­on of the claim can­not be infer­red from the joint and several credi­tor­s­hip.[35] Par­ti­cu­lar­ly in the case of indi­vi­si­ble per­for­mance, the satis­fied credi­tor has a duty to com­pen­sa­te the other joint and several credi­tors. If no spe­ci­fic quo­tas can be deter­mi­ned in the absence of an agree­ment, or if the cir­cum­s­tan­ces jus­ti­fy it, an equal appor­ti­onment is made (Art. 148 para. 1 CO ana­lo­gous­ly).[36]

10 If dama­ge occurs due to a default in accep­t­ance for which a joint and several credi­tor is respon­si­ble, such dama­ge shall be com­pen­sa­ted intern­al­ly.[37]


[1] Cf. BGE 118 II 168 con­sid. 2b; Bucher, p. 500; CHK-Mazan, mn. 2 to Art. 150 CO; Geiss­büh­ler, mn. 1268; Schwenzer/Fountoulakis, mn. 89.10.

[2] Baum­gart­ner, p. 17.

[3] KUKO-Jung, mn. 1 to Art. 150 CO. Cf. com­men­ta­ry on Art. 143 CO.

[4] BK-Kratz, mn. 13 to Art. 150 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 1 to Art. 150 CO; CHK-Mazan, mn. 2 to Art. 150 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 1 to Art. 150 CO; Gauch/Schluep/Emmenegger, mn. 3663; Tercier/Pichonnaz, mn. 1781.

[5] Examp­les are the com­mu­ni­ty of heirs (Art. 602 para. 2 CC) or the simp­le part­ners­hip (Art. 544 para. 1 CO). BK-Kratz, mn. 44 to Art. 150 CO; Tercier/Pichonnaz, mn. 1779.

[6] BGE 140 III 150 con­sid. 2.2.2; Gauch/Schluep/Emmenegger, mn. 3672; Hugue­nin, mn. 2324; Schwenzer/Fountoulakis, mn. 89.06 et seq.; Tercier/Pichonnaz, mn. 1780; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 22 to Art. 150 CO.

[7] BGE 140 III 150 con­sid. 2.2.3; Gauch/Schluep/Emmenegger, mn. 3659; Hugue­nin, mn. 2319; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 19 to Art. 150 CO.

[8] ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 27 to Art. 150 CO.

[9]  BGE 140 III 150 con­sid. 2.3.

[10] BGE 140 III 150 con­sid. 2.2.3; BGE 94 II 313 con­sid. 4.; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 3 to Art. 150 CO; CHK-Mazan, mn. 3 to Art. 150 CO; Schwenzer/Fountoulakis, mn. 89.05.

[11] Tercier/Pichonnaz, mn. 1780. Cf. Bron, p. 31.

[12] Cf. BGE 94 II 313 con­sid. 4. «dépo­sants soli­dai­res» and «soli­dai­re­ment titulaires».

[13] BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 3 to Art. 150 CO; CHK-Mazan, mn. 3 to Art. 150 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 3 to Art. 150 CO.

[14] BK-Kratz, mn. 62 to Art. 150 CO; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 29 to Art. 150 CO.

[15] BGE 140 III 150 con­sid. 2.2.1; BGE 112 III 90 con­sid. 5.; BGE 110 III 24 con­sid. 3.; BGE 94 II 313 con­sid. 4.; BGE 94 II 167 con­sid. 3.; decisi­on of the Federal Supre­me Court 4A_630/2020 of 24 March 2022 con­sid. 5. (inten­ded for publi­ca­ti­on). Cf. Baum­gart­ner, p. 28 et seq., BK-Kratz, mn. 65 et seq. and Bron, p. 41 et seq. for fur­ther reference.

[16] BGE 101 II 117 con­sid. 5.

[17] BGE 118 II 168 con­sid. 2b.

[18] Baum­gart­ner, p. 21; CR-Romy, mn. 3 to Art. 150 CO; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 34 to Art. 150 CO. Dif­fe­rent opi­ni­on BK-Kratz, mn 111 to Art. 150 CO.

[19] Baum­gart­ner, p. 20 et seq.; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 4 to Art. 150 CO; CHK-Mazan, mn. 4 to Art. 150 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 3 to Art. 150 CO; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 35 to Art. 150 CO. Dif­fe­rent opi­ni­on BK-Kratz, mn. 92 to Art. 150 CO.

[20] Baum­gart­ner, p.21 et seq.; BK-Kratz, mn. 94 et seq. to Art. 150 CO; Bucher, p. 499 fn. 72; CHK-Mazan, mn. 4 to Art. 150 CO; Schwenzer/Fountoulakis, mn. 89.11; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 36 to Art. 150 CO.

[21] Gauch/Schluep/Emmenegger, mn. 3683; Geiss­büh­ler, mn. 1272; Hugue­nin, mn. 2326; Tercier/Pichonnaz, mn. 1786; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 37 to Art. 150 CO.

[22] BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 4 to Art. 150 CO; Bucher, p. 499 fn. 72; KUKO-Jung, mn. 2 to Art. 150 CO.

[23] Decisi­on of the Federal Supre­me Court 4C.4/2004 of 20 April 2004 con­sid. 4.; Baum­gart­ner, p. 17; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 6 to Art. 150 CO; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 75 et seq. to Art. 150 CO.

[24] BK-Kratz, mn. 146 to Art. 150 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 5 to Art. 150 CO; von Tuhr/Escher, p. 322.

[25] BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 7 to Art. 150 CO; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 39 to Art. 150 CO.

[26] ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 59 to Art. 150 CO. Dif­fe­rent opi­ni­on Bucher, p. 500.

[27] BK-Kratz, mn. 150 to Art. 150 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 7 to Art. 150 CO; KUKO-Jung, mn. 3 to Art. 150 CO; von Tuhr/Escher, p. 323; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 89 to Art. 150 CO.

[28] BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 8 to Art. 150 CO; KUKO-Jung, mn. 4 to Art. 150 CO; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 72 to Art. 150 CO. Dif­fe­rent opi­ni­on von Tuhr/Escher, p. 322.

[29] BK-Kratz, mn. 126 to Art. 150 CO; Bron, p. 37; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 8 to Art. 150 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 7 to Art. 150 CO; Hugue­nin, mn. 2322.

[30] BGE 94 II 313 con­sid. 6; BK-Kratz, mn. 129 to Art. 150 CO; Bron, p. 37; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 8 to Art. 150 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 7 to Art. 150 CO; Schwenzer/Fountoulakis, mn. 89.12. Cf. ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 63 et seq. to Art. 150 CO, who dif­fe­ren­tia­tes bet­ween debt enfor­ce­ment and lawsuit.

[31] Decisi­on of the Federal Supre­me Court 4A_630/2020 of 24 March 2022 con­sid. 7. (inten­ded for publication).

[32] BGE 94 II 313 con­sid. 6.; BK-Kratz, mn. 129 to Art. 150 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 7 to Art. 150 CO; KUKO-Jung, mn. 4 to Art. 150 CO.

[33] BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 8 to Art. 150 CO. Cf. ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 64 to Art. 150 CO.

[34] BK-Kratz, mn. 169 to Art. 150 CO; CR-Romy, mn. 9 to Art. 150 CO; Geiss­büh­ler, mn. 1270; Schwenzer/Fountoulakis, mn. 89.13; Tercier/Pichonnaz, mn. 1787; von Tuhr/Escher, p. 324. Cf. Baum­gart­ner, p. 33 et seq. for fur­ther reference.

[35]  Cf. BGE 110 III 24 con­sid. 3.; BGE 94 II 313 con­sid. 4b; decisi­on of the Federal Supre­me Court 4A_630/2020 of 24 March 2022 con­sid. 5. (inten­ded for publication).

[36] BK-Kratz, mn. 179 to Art. 150 CO; BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 10 to Art. 150 CO; ZK-Kraus­kopf, mn. 101 to Art. 150 CO. Dif­fe­rent opi­ni­on Gauch/Schluep/Emmenegger, mn. 3667.

[37] BSK-Gra­ber, mn. 8 to Art. 150 CO; KUKO-Jung, mn. 4 to Art. 150 CO.

Literaturverzeichnis

Baum­gart­ner Han­nes, Depot- und Comp­te-joint unter beson­de­rer Berück­sich­ti­gung des Innen­ver­hält­nis­ses, diss., Zürich 1977

Bron René, Le comp­te-joint en droit suis­se, diss., Lau­sanne 1958

Bucher Eugen, Schwei­ze­ri­sches Obli­ga­tio­nen­recht All­ge­mei­ner Teil ohne Delikts­recht, 2nd ed., Zurich 1988

Gauch Peter / Schluep Wal­ter R. / Emmen­eg­ger Sus­an, Schwei­ze­ri­sches Obli­ga­tio­nen­recht All­ge­mei­ner Teil, Band II, 11th ed., Zurich / Basel / Gene­va 2020

Geiss­büh­ler Gré­go­i­re, Le droit des obli­ga­ti­ons, Volu­me 1: par­tie géné­ra­le, Gene­va / Zurich / Basel 2020

Gra­ber Chris­toph K., in: Wid­mer Lüchin­ger Corin­ne / Oser David (eds.), Bas­ler Kom­men­tar, Obli­ga­tio­nen­recht I, 7th ed., Basel 2020

Hugue­nin Clai­re, Obli­ga­tio­nen­recht All­ge­mei­ner und Beson­de­rer Teil, 3rd ed., Zurich / Basel / Gene­va 2019

Jung Peter, in: Hon­sell Hein­rich (ed.), Kurz­kom­men­tar OR, Basel 2014

Kratz Bri­git­ta, Ber­ner Kom­men­tar, Soli­da­ri­tät, Art. 143–150 OR, Bern 2015

Kraus­kopf Fré­dé­ric, Zür­cher Kom­men­tar, Die Soli­da­ri­tät, Art. 143–150 OR, 3rd ed., Zurich / Basel / Gene­va 2016

Mazan Ste­phan, in: Fur­rer Andre­as / Schny­der Anton K. (eds.), Hand­kom­men­tar zum Schwei­zer Pri­vat­recht, Obli­ga­tio­nen­recht All­ge­mei­ne Bestim­mun­gen, 3rd ed., Zurich / Basel / Gene­va 2016

Romy Isa­bel­le, in: Thé­ve­noz Luc / Wer­ro Franz (eds.), Com­men­taire romand, Code des obli­ga­ti­ons I, 3rd ed., Basel 2021

Schwen­zer Inge­borg / Foun­tou­la­kis Chris­tia­na, Schwei­ze­ri­sches Obli­ga­tio­nen­recht All­ge­mei­ner Teil, 8th ed., Bern 2020

Ter­cier Pierre / Pichon­naz Pas­cal, Le droit des obli­ga­ti­ons, 6th ed., Gene­va / Zurich / Basel 2019

von Tuhr Andre­as / Escher Arnold, All­ge­mei­ner Teil des Schwei­ze­ri­schen Obli­ga­tio­nen­rechts, Band II, 3rd ed., Zurich 1974

PDF-Version

Creative-Commons-Lizenz

Creative Commons Lizenzvertrag
Onlinekommentar.ch, Kom­men­tar zu Art. 150 OR von Jean-Pas­cal Stoll ist lizen­ziert unter einer Crea­ti­ve Com­mons Namens­nen­nung 4.0 Inter­na­tio­nal Lizenz.