## Facts

- Tobler and Blaser executed a written patent-assignment contract on April 13, 1926.
- The contract contained a broad arbitration clause submitting “differences” arising from the contract to an arbitrator (the cantonal court president), designating Schwyz as the forum and site for arbitral acts.
- On May 11, 1931, Tobler sued in the District Court of Schwyz seeking recognition of his ownership of the patents and related relief.
- The District Court declined jurisdiction, concluding the arbitration clause required the dispute to be arbitrated rather than litigated in state court.
- The Justizkommission des Kantons Schwyz affirmed the District Court’s declination of jurisdiction.
- Tobler filed a constitutional/public-law appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, arguing that challenges to the contract’s valid formation and defenses such as defects of consent (including simulation) should be decided by ordinary courts, not by arbitration.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged invalidity of the main contract (including defects of consent or simulation) automatically renders the arbitration clause invalid.
2. Whether a broadly worded arbitration clause covering “differences” arising from the contract includes disputes about the contract’s valid formation and defenses such as simulation.
3. Whether a cantonal refusal to exercise jurisdiction in deference to an arbitration clause constitutes unconstitutional denial of justice or unequal treatment.

## Decision

- The Swiss Federal Tribunal dismissed Tobler’s constitutional/public-law appeal.
- The court held that invalidity of the main contract does not, by itself, invalidate an arbitration clause contained within it.
- The court held that, absent clear contrary intent, a broad clause referring disputes arising from the contract to arbitration includes disputes over the contract’s validity and defenses such as simulation.
- The court affirmed the cantonal authorities’ decisions declining state-court jurisdiction because the parties had agreed to arbitrate.
- The court found no unconstitutional denial of justice or inequality in directing the parties to the contractually selected arbitral forum.

## Legal Principles

- An arbitration clause is legally distinct from the main contract; alleged invalidity of the main contract does not automatically nullify the arbitration agreement.
- A general submission to arbitrate disputes arising from a contract is presumed to encompass disputes about whether the contract was validly concluded and defenses such as simulation, unless expressly excluded.
- Allegations that the main contract is invalid go to the merits of the dispute to be decided in arbitration, not to the state court’s competence where the arbitration agreement applies.
- Enforcing a valid arbitration agreement by declining state-court jurisdiction is not, without more, a denial of justice or unequal treatment.

## Conclusion

The court upheld dismissal of the state-court action in favor of arbitration, reasoning that the arbitration clause stands independently of alleged invalidity of the underlying contract and, in general terms, covers disputes over contract validity and simulation defenses.


Tobler v. Justizkommission des Kantons Schwyz, 59 BGE I 177 (Switz. 1933)