If however, the customer does not accept it, that means that they exercise their rights from non-conformity of the delivered food with the contract179 and the restaurateur is obliged either to perform the order as appropriate or to ‘restore’ the conformity by repairing or replacing the meal or by allowing a price reduction or tolerate the exercising of the customer`s rescission right (all the above accumulating with a compensation). If it is not possible to deliver the performance at all, then the provisions for debtor’s default and impossibility of performance apply analogously180. On the other hand, should the restaurateur deliver the ordered dishes and meals (foods and drinks) in a quantity less than the customer ordered181, it is possible that we do not always have a non-conformity with the contract182: it would depend on the perspective of the seller/maker of the food, whether they intend to deliver completely with less quantity (non-conformity) or whether they admits a false performance. In the latter case we have a partial impossibility, and the restaurateur is obliged either to perform the order as appropriate or to tolerate the consequences of the withdrawal of the contract by the customer, according to the general provisions183. 8.5.4. Customer Protection under the Consumer Law Furthermore, in a situation such as a debtor being in default, the restauranteur’s contractual liability and relative claims for the customer are combined with the particular protective provisions of the consumer protection law184. 8.5.4.1. Safety of Products in the Market Under the special provisions of Greek Law Nr. 2251/1994, there is an 179 See above, chapters 8.2., 8.5.2. (8.5.2.2., 8.5.2.3., 8.5.2.4.), 8.5.3.; supra n. 128, 148, 152, 164, 167, 168, 166. 180 See ibid. 181 In the case that the restaurateur delivers the ordered dishes and meals (foods and drinks) in a quantity more than the customer ordered, the latter either has to decline to accept the quantity which they didn’t order or, should they accept this amount (tacitly when they consume it) they are obliged to pay for the surplus, otherwise the restaurateur has claims of unjustified enrichment against him; see E. J. H. Schrage, On obligations that arise from unjustified enrichment, Digesta 2015, 379 et seq., 381-382 (on condictio indebiti); compare Alexander Schall, The Principle of Unjust Enrichment, 2025, Walter de Gruyter: Berlin/Boston, pp. 6, 9 et seq., 103 et seq., 111 et seq., 238 et seq., 242 et seq. (and passim). 182 See e.g. § 434 V BGB (“Delivery by the seller of a different thing is equivalent to a material defect”). 183 See chapters 8.3., 8.5.1.1., 8.5.2.2., 8.5.2.3., 8.5.2.4., 8.5.3., 8.6.1., 8.6.2.; supra n. 143, 175, 183. 184 In the Greek legal order see the Consumer Protection Law Nr. 2251/1994 (supra n. 120) as amended most recently. Compare, although in a prior version of the law, Ioannis K. Karakostas, Consumer Protection Introduction, in Greek Law Digest - The official guide to Greek law (28.01.2019) [available at https://www.greeklawdigest.gr/topics/ consumer-protection/item/278-consumer-protection-introduction, accessed 15 July 2025]; Paraskevi Paparseniou, Griechisches Verbrauchervertragsrecht, 2008, Sellier: Munich (passim). 99 THE (RESTAURANT) CATERING CONTRACT IN TOURISM
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==