8.7. Ancillary Obligations of the Parties 8.7.1. The good faith principle Good faith is a general principle that establishes the execution of all types of contracts according to what the parties agreed upon232. The importance of the good faith principle in contract execution derives from the established that contractual obligation to inform, disclose and warn or protect the client, whose breach leads to contractual liability arising from defective performance233. The restaurant owner’s obligation to ensure customer safety is an obligation to protect them from defective or spoiled food234. This obligation is an obligation by means and not by result, as the debtor, a restaurant, commits to exercising required care to ensure customer or guest safety. 8.7.2. Breach of Obligation for Proper Behaviour within the Establishment Proper behaviour within the establishment constitutes a prerequisite that must be observed by both sides. Rude behaviour by the personnel constitutes a reason for overturning the basis or the ground of the legal transaction, which makes continuation and execution of the contract between the two parties nor beneficial, neither advantageous235. Also, it could be supported that rude behaviour by other customers in the establishment gives customer the right to terminate the restaurant contract, especially if the owner has been notified but is indifferent236. On the other hand, consumption by the client of drinks and food that do not come from the establishment constitutes behaviour contrary to good faith, good morals and commercial customs237. The restaurateur is not obliged to seq. NBW, compare Art. 895-898 ZGB and Art. 288 OR) if he has a claim against the innkeeper for the issue of an invoice in accordance with tax laws, and the innkeeper does not issue such an invoice, District Court Brandenburg, judgment of 08.03.2016 - 31 C 137/14, in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift-Rechtsprechungsreport (NJW-RR) 2016, 877. 232 The contracting party should be of good faith and be characterized by vigilance and insight in exercising the care required from them legally. Cf. Christodoulou, supra n. 53, § 5 I B 1. 233 Instead of resorting abusing their right which establishes the basis for tort liability arising. The differences between contractual and tort liability or liability from negotiations (culpa in contrahendo), are obvious. 234 This is the same obligation imposed in the case of a hospitality contract on the hotel owner toward the guest during their stay in the hotel from physical damages they may be exposed to and taking necessary measures to prevent their exposure to harm. In case several innkeepers jointly owe the fulfilment of the protective obligations of the guest accommodation contract, the fault is mutually attributed to them, see German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) judgement of 04.06.1969 (Nr. I ZR 106/67), in Versicherungsrecht (VersR) 1969, 830; Lars Böttcher, in Erman/BGB Kommentar, 17. Aufl., 2023, § 425 Rn. 10. 235 See in the German case law the judgment of 23.10.1968 of District Court Garmisch-Partenkirchen, No. 3 C 127/68, in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1969, 608 et seq.; cf. Canaris, supra n. 58, p. 219 et seq.; Huguenin & Rusch, supra n. 19, Rz. 26. 236 This is the same obligation imposed in case of hospitality contract on the hotel owner, supra n. 230. 237 See Art. 178, 281, 288 GCC; compare §§ 138, 242 BGB, Art. § 879, 1295 II ABGB, Art. 20 I OR and Art. 2 108 APOSTOLOS TASSIKAS
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==