II. Table reservation observed by the client followed by non-acceptance of the menus offered The decision of the District Court of Siegburg (Amtsgericht Siegburg, 30 November 1990, Case No. 6 C 464/90) offers an instructive clarification of the legal nature and consequences of a restaurant table reservation under German civil law. The court held that a reservation, while creating reciprocal obligations between the customer and the restaurateur, does not impose a binding duty on the customer to order or consume a meal. Accordingly, a restaurant owner cannot claim compensation for loss of profit merely because a guest, having arrived as agreed, decides not to order food. The case concerned a regular patron who had reserved a table for four at a small, higher-end restaurant called “Z-Mühle” for lunch on Mother’s Day, 13 May 1990. Upon arrival, the party discovered that the restaurant was offering only a fixed “Mother’s Day Menu,” consisting of two appetizers and three main courses. None of the dishes appealed to the group, and they decided not to order food, paying only for their beverages. The restaurant owner then demanded a “compensation fee” of 15 Deutsche Marks per person—an amount the plaintiff paid under protest before later filing a claim for reimbursement. The court ultimately ruled in his favor, finding that the demand had no legal basis. In its reasoning, the court examined the contractual meaning of a table reservation in light of the interpretive principles set out in §§ 1336 and 1577 of BGB. These provisions require that declarations of intent be interpreted in his remuneration corresponding to his services performed thus far. If he gives notice without being prompted to do so by action of the other party in breach of contract, or if he should prompt termination by the other party by his own action in breach of contract, then he has no claim to the remuneration to the extent that his previous services are of no interest to the other party as a result of the notice of termination. If remuneration is paid in advance for a later period of time, then the person obliged must reimburse it under the provisions of section 346 or, if notice of termination is given by reason of a circumstance for which he is not responsible, under the provisions on the return of unjust enrichment. 2. If notice of termination is prompted by the conduct of the other party in breach of contract, then the other party is obliged to compensate the damage arising from the dissolution of the service relationship.”. 6 “Interpretation of a declaration of intent When a declaration of intent is interpreted, it is necessary to ascertain the true intention rather than adhering to the literal meaning of the declaration.”. 7 “Interpretation of contracts Contracts are to be interpreted as required by good faith, taking customary practice into consideration.”. XXIV
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==