guests259. As the guest assistant, the innkeeper would also be liable for damage caused to third parties260. IX. SUMMARY In the case of the catering contract the special typological features vary and depend on the type of civil law (special) contracts the contract could be attributed to, according to its legal nature and the basic contractual elements (essentialia negotii). The criteria for the legal nature in concreto are the main purpose of the contract and the obligations (or rights) afforded (or given) to the counterparties for reaching their contractual (and economic) scope. Therefore, the restaurant catering contract has elements of sale, lease, work contract, loan for use (commodatum) and mandate. So, thanks to its diversity of elements, in the form of a combination of various nominate or innominate contracts, the restaurant catering contract constitutes a mixed-type contract (innominate contract mixti iuris), or, according to some, a sui generis contract. For the choice of applicable law on mixed contracts, many different theories have been formulated. However, the determination will be made based on an evaluative assessment of the interests of the contracting parties following interpretation and the corresponding rules of law. Despite the presence in the catering contract of typological elements (i.e. conditions, subject and results) similar to other types of nominated contracts, one single subject is easily recognisable under the catering contract: the expected result that the parties sought at the time of its conclusion, i.e. ensuring food, nourishment by order of the customer. Moreover, the restaurant and the catering performance should be in compliance with the requirements of legislation regarding the quality and safety of food products, while the customer undertakes to accept such provision and pay for it. during an amateur football tournament, see Huguenin & Rusch, supra n. 19, Rz. 38 and their references to a decision of 20.04.1983 of the District Courd Dorneck-Thierstein (Switzerland). 259 In another case, the restaurant owner refrained from intervening in an altercation between several guests; a guest who was not involved in the altercation suffered injuries when a bottle was suddenly thrown at him from behind by an unknown person. The Bern Court of Appeal ruled that the restaurant owner had not breached his duty. See Huguenin & Rusch, supra n. 19, Rz. 38 and their references to the above decision of 30.07.1973. 260 The Swiss Federal Supreme Court (BGer) affirmed a violation of this duty due to the restaurant owner’s failure to monitor or intervene in an improvised rifle shooting competition organized by guests, which resulted in injuries at an outdoor restaurant, BGE 71 II 107, 113, 114-115 under E. 4). See Huguenin & Rusch, supra n. 19, Rz. 38; Art. 97 OR, and Art. 41, Art. 50 para 1 OR. 112 APOSTOLOS TASSIKAS
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==