The solution based on Good Faith Under the General Rule of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch – BGB), a client in a service contract may terminate the contract or claim damages only in the event of defective performance; no statutory right to a price reduction exists. The Court found that this general rule could not apply rigidly when termination would be unreasonable and contrary to the principle of good faith (§ 242 BGB – Treu und Glauben). Two exceptional factors were decisive: a) Impracticability of Termination: It was manifestly impossible for the defendants to cancel the contract during the ongoing event and to find an alternative venue capable of accommodating 50 guests. b) Importance of the Schedule: The timely serving of lunch was crucial for the organization of subsequent parts of the celebration, including the afternoon and evening meals. The Court observed that these circumstances were foreseeable to the restaurateur, who should have anticipated the consequences of a substantial delay. Consequently, restricting the defendants solely to termination or damages would have been disproportionate and unjust. To restore contractual equilibrium, the Court deemed it necessary to analogically grant a right to price reduction. The LG Karlsruhe decision represents an important development in German contract law by extending, through analogy, the right to price reduction to mixed contracts involving service elements, in circumstances where contract termination would be unreasonable. The ruling underscores the flexibility of the principle of good faith (Treu und Glauben) as a corrective mechanism within the German Civil Code, allowing equitable adjustments in atypical contractual relationships. The Court’s reasoning harmonizes the doctrinal integrity of contract law with practical fairness in consumer and hospitality contexts. IX. Fall in the restaurant and the restaurateur’s responsibilities The decision of the Saarland Higher Regional Court, in case number 4 U 43/09, issued on 18 August 2009, rejected the plaintiff’s appeal against the dismissal of his damages claim arising from a fall in a restaurant and thus affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The court’s reasoning centred on the doctrine of causation, holding that even if a breach of the restaurateur’s duty to ensure traffic safety were assumed, such omission could not be shown to have caused the accident. XLI
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==