economy124, and the special regulative framework125 or the court decisions126, something which is beyond the scope of this research127. 8.2. Obligations of the Parties The restaurant owner has the obligation to deliver meal and drinks within a reasonable timeframe and without actual defects128. The location in which 124 Praveen Puram & Anand Gurumurthy, Sharing economy in the food sector: A systematic literature review and future research agenda, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, vol. 56, 2023, 229-244 (https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.06.027); Marianna Sigala, “Sharing and Platform Economy in Tourism: An Ecosystem Review of Actors and Future Research Agenda”, in Zheng Xiang, Matthias Fuchs, Ulrike Gretzel & Wolfram Höpken (eds.), Handbook of e-Tourism, Springer, 2022, pp. 1521-1543 (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48652-5_89); Food Standards Agency, Digital Food Marketplaces for Unconventional Food Entrepreneurs. Final Report (by Sebastian Prost, Open Lab Newcastle University RCUK Policy Intern), August 2018 (available at https://www.food.gov.uk/ sites/default/files/media/document/food-in-the-platform-economy-digital-food-marketplaces.pdf, accessed 15 July 2025). 125 At European level see Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, OJ L 186, 11.07.2019, pp. 57-79 (ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/1150/oj). 126 At a European level, see case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in particularly the judgments of 19 December 2019 (C-390/18 Airbnb Ireland) and of 3 December 2020 (C-62/19 Star Taxi App SRL). According to the CJEU`s decisions on the intermediary role of sharing economy platforms these are classified as infor-� mation society services and fall under Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on Electronic Commerce), consolidated version ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/31/2024-0217 (particularly relevant to the intermediary role of online agencies in the context of service contracts). The decisions of the CJEU in relation to sharing economy platforms could be analogously applicable in the case of online platforms that act as intermediaries for restaurant lunch or dinner reservations. 127 Interesting issues could also arise by considering whether platforms participate also as a legal representative or even as a ‘vicar’ for the restauranteur and/or for the customer (at the same time) in concluding and executing the contract. Though, it seems that the platforms participate only in the drafting and concluding of the ‘preformed’ catering contract and not in the performance of the restaurateur`s services. This notion is strengthened with the argument that platforms have a dominant position in the restaurant’s catering market as they could unilaterally impose conditions, etc. 128 The sales law is affected by Directive 2019/771/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods, amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC, and repealing Directive 1999/44/EC, OJ L 136, 22.5.2019, pp. 28-50 (ELI: http://data.europa. eu/eli/dir/2019/771/oj). According to its provisions, the vendor (restaurateur) is liable for defects of the objects or for lack of agreed qualities with full contractual liability, and the purchaser (customer) is entitled to seek the repair or replacement of the object (i.e., the fulfilment of the obligation that there should not be a defect of the thing, etc., that is, by bringing the thing into conformity with the contract) before the right of reduction of the purchase price and at last the right of rescission (the latter only for essential defects – in favor contractu). See Art. 16, 13 I, IV of the Directive. If the work performed by the contractor (restaurateur) has minor defects, then the customer is entitled to demand either their removal within a reasonable time, insofar as such removal does not entail disproportionate expenses or, instead, a proportional reduction of the remuneration; if the work performed has substantial defects which destroy its ordinary or stipulated use or it has not the qualities agreed upon, the customer is entitled, instead of removal of the defect or reduction of remuneration to demand cancellation (rescission) of the contract; otherwise if the defects are caused by circumstances for which the contractor is responsible, the customer may demand compensation for non-performance instead of cancellation (rescission) or reduction. Compare on contract for work the provisions of Art. 688, 689, 690 GCC, § 633 et seq. BGB, Art. 368 OR, Art. 1167, 922-933b ABGB, Art. 1792 et seq. cc, Art. 1667 et seq. CC. See Stathopoulos & Karampatzos, supra n. 10, Nos. 364 et seq., 366-367; Christodoulou, supra n. 53, § 5 II F. 89 THE (RESTAURANT) CATERING CONTRACT IN TOURISM
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==