Key legal question
Whether the public-law appeal was inadmissible because the complaint concerned federal law rather than arbitrariness in proof assessment.
Extracted holding
The appeal was admissible because it challenged the cantonal court's evidentiary finding on the parties' real and concordant intent, not the application of federal law.
Extracted reasoning
The appellant attacked the factual conclusion that no contract was proven. Questions of contract formation and burden of proof were invoked only as context; the decisive criticism targeted the assessment of evidence under art. 9 of the Constitution.