they are based on a continuous delivery that is not tied to a specific time202. The exemption provision is to be understood ‘in connection with the other consumer and leisure-related services mentioned’, which is why it must concern ready-toeat food and drinks203. 8.5.4.3. Liability for the Producer of Defective Products Of weight within the Consumer Protection Law is the provision establishing a strict system of liability for the producer of defective products204. More specifically, the actual producer of consumer goods, as well as others participating in the production chain and distribution procedure, i.e. the quasi producer, the importer and, under certain conditions, the supplier of goods, are held jointly responsible for any defects in consumer products205. The existence of a defect in a product is to be assessed against the yardstick (a) of the performance one anticipates from a product with the same technical specifications and (b) the safety reasonably expected from such a product, taking into consideration all the circumstances206. The supplier is liable for any damage causally linked to the defective product, either personal (damage caused by death or personal injury) or of proprietary nature on any asset, other than the defective product itself207. In comparison to the relevant provisions of the Civil Codes, which establish tortious liability, the EU-regulatory framework offers the definitive advantage that it reverses the burden of proof, as all the injured party has to do is to prove the defectiveness of the product and the causal link between such a defect and his damage208. 202 Therefore, it seems like it is generally not considered sufficient if the service consists of the mere delivery of (unprepared) food and beverages, compare Stefan Ernst, Zeitlich gebundene und zu reservierende Dienstleistungen im neuen Fernabsatzrecht (§ 312 g Abs. 2 Nr. 9 BGB), in Verbraucher und Recht (VuR) 2015, 337, 338 ; Martin Schirmbacher, in Gerald Spindler & Fabian Schuster, Recht der elektronischen Medien, 4. Aufl., 2019, BGB § 312j Rn. 58-60. 203 Sebastian Martens, in Beck-Online Kommentar BGB [2024, 75. ed., stand 01.08.2025], § 312g Ν. 43. In addition to ordering catering, a typical example is a pizza delivery service, Schirmbacher, ibid n. 202, Ν. 58; Christian Grüneberg, in Grüneberg/BGB, 83. Aufl., 2024, § 312g N 12; contra Ernst, supra n. 202, p. 337-338. 204 See Art. 4, 7, 8 of the Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25.07.1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, OJ L 210, 07/08/1985 p. 29-33 (consolidated version from 04.06.1999, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1985/374/oj) and Art. 10, 11, 13-14 of the new Directive (EU) 2024/2853 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on liability for defective products and repealing Council Directive 85/374/EEC, OJ L-series, 18.11.2024 (ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/2853/oj). 205 See Art. 1, 2, 3 of the Directive 85/374/EEC; compare Art. 1, 2 para 2 and 3, Art. 3, 4 and 8 para 1 of the Directive 2024/2853/EU (ibid, n. 204). 206 See Art. 6 of the Directive 85/374/EEC; compare Art. 7 of the Directive 2024/2853/EU (supra n. 204). 207 See Art. 9 of the Directive 85/374/EEC; compare Art. 6 para 1 lit. a), b), and para 2-3 of the Directive 2024/2853/EU (supra n. 204). 208 See Art. 4 of the Directive 85/374/EEC; compare Art. 10 para 1 and para 2-5 of the Directive 2024/2853/ 103 THE (RESTAURANT) CATERING CONTRACT IN TOURISM
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==