As can be observed, the most common classification is that of collective food service contracts, precisely because it is in this sector that the economic function of this agreement finds its greatest application. Function which is the fulfilment of the needs of “all those who, for the most diverse reasons, spend most of their day in shared environments, or lead a true community life, and therefore must provide, outside of their domestic arrangements, for at least one of the two main meals of the day”16. Given the complexity and variability of the content and object of this agreement, from the moment it entered the market, as a “new” and unnamed contract, legal scholarship has engaged in debate regarding its legal classification, the identification of its causa, and the determination of the applicable legal framework17. The discussion primarily concerns whether the new contract is atypical or whether it may be classified as a mixed contract and, in the latter case, whether it should be governed by the rules of the various contracts from which it draws, or instead, according to the structure of the prevailing contract, following the so-called theory of prevalence and absorption. One line of interpretation identifies supply contract as the defining element of the agreement, based on the definition according to which, under a catering contract, one party undertakes to supply the other with ready-to-eat meals in exchange for payment of a price18. This is typically the case with airline catering, in which the catering company’s obligation is to deliver pre-packaged meals, and the supply function fully satisfies the purpose of the contract. The distribution, on the other hand, is carried out by the airline staff, and thus constitutes an instance of true supply contract19. A different view, instead, considers procurement contract or more specifically service contracting, as the appropriate contractual model. This applies when, beyond the production and delivery of meals, additional services are also provided20. Addante, Il contratto di catering, in Bocchini (edited by), I contratti di somministrazione di servizi, Torino, 2006, p. 650 ss. 16 The words are of M. Pittalis, Catering, in Contratto e impresa, 1989, p. 265. 17 Among others, see: G. Petrillo, cit, p. 61; M. Pittalis, cit., p. 265 e ss.; Comodi, Il catering, in (edited by) Alberti-Zuddas La moderna contrattualistica civile e commerciale, Perugia, 1992, p. 35 ss.; Settesoldi, Catering, in Cendon (edited by) I nuovi contratti della prassi civile e commerciale, Vol. 16, Torino, 2004, p. 359 e ss.; Addante, Il contratto di catering, in Bocchini (edited by), I contratti di somministrazione, di servizi, Torino, 2006, p. 650 e ss.; A. Papa, I contratti dell’azienda ristorativa, Firenze, 2007, p. 21. 18 See G. Petrillo, cit, p. 60. And according to Addante, Catering, cit., p.666, catering should be classified as a contract for the supply of services. 19 Cons. Stato, sez. V, 17 of January 2000, n. 289, has qualified as supply, pursuant to art. 1559 of the civil code, the request by a municipality to catering companies to provide ready-made meals every day and supplied in single-serving containers. 20 See G. Santini, cit., p. 91-93, of the same orientation: G. Presti – M. Rescigno, Corso di diritto commerciale, Bologna, 2004. 39 ITALY, FOOD, CONTRACTS
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==