In conclusion, the District Court determined that no contractual, statutory, or delictual basis existed for imposing liability on the defendant. The action was therefore dismissed, and the claimant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings. The decision thus reaffirms the principle that, in the context of restaurants and bars, the operator is not generally responsible for the loss of customers’ belongings left in unattended cloakrooms, and that the risk associated with doing so rests with the customer. XIII. Paying for a large amount of consumption by check at a bar The decision issued by Bundesgerichtshof in case II ZR 176/79, dated 13 March 1980, regarding the validity of issuing cheques to settle significant consumer debts incurred at an entertainment venue or “hostess bar” (Animierlokal). It held that such conduct, in itself, does not constitute a violation of good morals (sittenwidrig), and that, consequently, the underlying cheque agreements are not void under § 138 BGB18. The judgment was based on the specific circumstances of the case. The defendant, a client of the establishment, entered the premises with the premeditated intention of paying by cheque and had even declared his willingness to spend up to 5,000 DM. The Court found there was neither deception nor surprise regarding the prices charged, and that the cheque had been used for its legitimate purpose—payment—rather than abusively to reverse the burden of proof regarding the debt’s value. Accordingly, the defendant’s appeal was dismissed, and he remained obliged to honour the amounts represented by the cheques. The dispute involved the proprietor of a cabaret-style bar (the plaintiff) and a client (the defendant) who visited the establishment on two consecutive nights. The plaintiff, as holder of the cheques, filed a suit to recover the amounts of three cheques issued by the defendant to pay for his expenses at the bar, which were dishonoured upon presentation. The cheques, drawn on the defendant’s account with X-Bank, dated 19 and 20 August 1976, amounted to 4,203 DM, 4,110 18 “Legal transaction contrary to public policy; usury A legal transaction which is contrary to public policy is void. In particular, a legal transaction is void by which a person, by exploiting the predicament, inexperience, lack of sound judgement or considerable weakness of will of another, causes himself or a third party, in exchange for an act of performance, to be promised or granted pecuniary advantages which are clearly disproportionate to the performance.”. LI
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==