Citation: 4A_301/2018 E. 4.3

4.3. Das Schiedsgericht bejahte die Schadenersatzpflicht des Beschwerdegegners zufolge Schlechterfüllung des "Consultancy Agreement" im Grundsatz. Es befand, der Beschwerdegegner habe die Beschwerdeführerin nicht adäquat über die Risiken im Zusammenhang mit dem Projekt informiert, mit der Folge, dass die Beschwerdeführerin fehlerhafte Investitionsentscheide gefällt habe (Ausstellung von "Performance Bonds" und Kauf von Gasturbinen). In Ausübung seines Ermessens gemäss Art. 44 OR ("in application of its discretion under Article 44 CO") kürzte es jedoch den widerklageweise geltend gemachten Ersatzanspruch wegen Selbstverschuldens der Beschwerdeführerin ("due to Respondent's own fault") um die Hälfte. Zur Begründung führte es in Randziffer 186 des Schiedsspruchs aus: "In the case at hand there are indeed a number of aspects that need to be taken into consideration when assessing a possible reduction of the compensation owed by Claimant. Frist, W.________ is known as a country with a particular "country risk", i.e. also the hiring of a local consultant with specific knowledge on the potential risks does not exclude the risk completely, and a well-established company with international reputation and particular experience in the region, such as Respondent, can be expected to be aware of this (remaining) risk. Secondly, in connection with the whole process around the First Tender and the transition period to the Second Tender, Respondent must have realized that the process steered by Ministries of the W.________ government was at least partly dysfunctional and, consequently, that the award of the Project did not yet mean that the Client became a reliable contracting partner. Thirdly, in connection with the organization of the required funds for the execution of the Project, Respondent was warned by international banks, which in the end were not willing to participate in the (pre-) financing of the Project. Finally, even though it was Respondent's intention to receive helpful support by Claimant for its own decision process when entering into the Consultancy Agreement, it was ultimately Respondent that was taking the business decisions including the risks involved, and this also applies to the two major investments, for which Claimant's liability was established hereinabove." Die Beschwerdeführerin meint, während des gesamten Schiedsverfahrens sei ein angebliches Selbstverschulden an dem von ihr erlittenen Schaden nie thematisiert worden, weder vom Beschwerdegegner noch vom Schiedsgericht. Angesichts dieser Ausgangslage habe sie weder Grund noch Anlass gehabt, "sich je mit der Frage eines angeblichen eigenen (Mit-) Verschuldens zu befassen".