rules governing contracts for work and services (§ 63416 BGB), providing food contaminated with salmonella is a significant defect that nullifies the purpose of the contract, making the performance entirely worthless and justifying a complete refund regardless of fault. However, the claim for damages due to the delayed honeymoon was dismissed. The court reaffirmed its established case law that the loss of enjoyment from holidays caused by bodily injury does not qualify as a compensable financial loss. Nonetheless, such loss can be considered when awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The BGH judgment of 19 November 1991 thus marks a significant development in consumer protection and in the doctrine of producer liability. It extends the reversal of the burden of proof to small and artisanal businesses, ensuring that consumers harmed by defective products in restaurants and similar establishments enjoy the same protection as those affected by industrially produced goods. The decision clearly distinguishes the liability of the proprietor, who bears the evidentiary burden of demonstrating due diligence, from that of employees, for whom the ordinary rules of proof apply. It also reaffirms the coexistence of contractual and tortious liability and the principle that the loss of holiday enjoyment is not an independent pecuniary loss but may be considered within the framework of compensation for non-pecuniary harm. XII. Loss of coat at a hotel restaurant involving a non-guest client In the decision issued on 11 December 1991, the District Court (Amtsgericht) of Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler dismissed a claim for damages brought by a customer against a hotel following the alleged loss of her coat from an unattended cloakroom next to the hotel’s bar. The claimant, who was not a guest of the hotel but merely a patron of its bar, argued that the establishment was responsible for the disappearance of her garment. However, the court ruled that the legal rules governing a hotelier’s 16 “Rights of the customer in the case of defects If the work is defective, the customer, if the requirements of the following provisions are met and to the extent not otherwise specified, may 1. under section 635, demand cure, 2. under section 637, remedy the defect himself and demand reimbursement for required expenses, 3. under sections 636, 323 and 326 (5), withdraw from the contract or under section 638, reduce payment, and 4. under sections 636, 280, 281, 283 and 311a, demand damages, or under section 284, demand reimbursement of futile expenditure.”. XLIX
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==