Art. 111 Bundesgesetz vom 30. März 1911 betreffend die Ergänzung des Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuches (OR)

KG ARGVP 2010 3555 · ar (Art. 111 OR)

Directory Service Provider v. Unauthorized Signatory (AGB Liability)

The contested clause was qualified as a guarantee contract under this article.

BGE 120 II 331 (Art. 111 OR)

Parent company reliance-based liability for misleading subsidiary advertising toward its customers.

The court examined whether the parent company assumed a contractual guarantee liability for the subsidiary's obligations and held that no such guarantee arose from the parent's promotional statements.

C/16811/2022 · ge (art. 111 CO)

Appellant's Guarantee Obligation Upheld in Commercial Payment Dispute

This provision defines the suretyship agreement (porte-fort), which was the core legal distinction determining the outcome of the main claim.

CACIV.2024.24 · ne (art. 111 CO)

Landlord v. Social Services Agencies Regarding Rent Guarantees and Tenant Eligibility

Cited to define the legal nature of the guarantee provided by B1____ as a suretyship (porte-fort).

C/1205/2022 · ge (art. 111 CO)

Guarantee Agreement as Independent Indemnity in Maritime Transport Dispute

The court confirmed the lower court's qualification of the guarantee as a suretyship ('porte-fort') under this article, which was the main ground for rejecting the appeal against the provisional levying of attachment.

RT220001 · zh (Art. 111 OR)

Appellate Court Ruling on Provisional Enforcement of Document Classified as Guarantee Versus Suretyship.

The core issue, the distinction between a guarantee (Art. 111 OR) and a suretyship, was used to justify ruling in favor of the appellant, finding a valid guarantee agreement existed.

VB.2022.00077 · zh (Art. 111 Abs. 2 lit. b OR)

Estate of [Deceased Appellant] v. [Opposing Party]

The court addresses the termination of obligations due to death.

CACIV.2022.18 · ne (Art. 111 CO)

Share Sale Conditional on Void Stock Management Agreement

The court ruled on the liability of Y._________ as a guarantor (porte-fort) under this provision, ultimately rejecting the claim against him based on the extent of the damage.

SB.2020.00102 · zh (Art. 111 OR)

Tax Treatment of "Share Purchase Interest Rate" Payment Upon Corporate Sale

The court discussed this article in relation to the 'No Leakage' clause, forming part of the reasoning leading to the final decision.

ML.2020.270 · vd (Art. 111 CO)

Provisional Lifting of Opposition to Debt Enforcement Against Partners and Guarantors

Mentioned in the reasoning regarding when a debtor is in default (mise en demeure).

C/25707/2019 · ge (art. 111 CO)

Appellate Court Upholds Provisional Lifting of Opposition to Payment Order Based on Letter of Indemnity

This provision concerning the promise of indemnity (porte-fort) was used as the basis for the debt recognized by the indemnity letter, which constituted the title for provisional debt clearance.

C/7249/2020 · ge (Art. 111 CO)

Guarantor Payment Refusal Appeal Over Performance Guarantee Call

Cited in the reasoning to define the nature of the guarantee as an independent guarantee, although not explicitly in the final orders, it is contextually relevant to the substantive issue resolved under Art. 261 CPC.

ARMC.2020.31 · ne (Art. 111 CO)

Creditor v. Debtor: Independent Guarantee vs. Suretyship Formal Requirements

The court confirmed the existence of a valid promise of *porte-fort* (guarantor's undertaking) under this article, which was the main ground for rejecting the appeal and upholding the definitive setting aside of the opposition.

ZB.2019.17 · bs (Art. 111 OR)

Guarantor Liability for Abstract Guarantee Upheld Despite Underlying Contract Disputes

The qualification of the guarantee as a guarantee similar to a suretyship (bürgschaftsähnliche Garantie) under this article formed the basis for determining the scope and effect of the guarantee in the substantive review.

RBOG.2019.Nr.8 · tg (Art. 111 OR)

Affirmation of Rejection of Provisional Enforcement Based on Void Suretyship Lacking Notarization

The court implicitly ruled that the obligation was not a guarantee under this article, which supports the finding that provisional legal remedy could not be granted.