III. Table reservation not used during Hanover Fair The Kiel Regional Court ruling of January 22, 1998, addressed whether a restaurant could claim damages after a customer failed to honor a table reservation. The court concluded that a reservation does not constitute a binding hospitality contract but merely marks the initiation of pre-contractual negotiations, governed by the principle of culpa in contrahendo. This means that the act of reserving a table represents a stage of negotiation rather than a final agreement obligating the parties to perform. However, the court also recognized that a customer who fails to appear without timely cancellation may, in principle, be liable for damages arising from a breach of good faith during this pre-contractual phase. The case involved a restaurant owner in Hannover and a defendant who had made a reservation for five to six people for every evening between March 14 and 20, 1996, during the CeBIT trade fair. The restaurant confirmed the booking via fax on February 23, 1996, including a menu card, and the defendant signed and returned it. When the defendant’s party failed to appear on the first evenings, the restaurant sent a reminder by fax on March 17, stating its intention to charge for the no-show and asking whether the reservation should remain in effect. The defendant subsequently canceled the remaining reservations as of March 18. The restaurant then sued for damages corresponding to four evenings, claiming 2,848.44 Deutsche Marks, which represented its estimated lost profit after deducting 30 percent for saved expenses. The plaintiff argued that a binding contract had been concluded through the signed confirmation, obliging the defendant to compensate for lost profit. The defendant, on the other hand, maintained that the reservation was a non-binding courtesy, creating no enforceable duty to appear or to order anything. The lower court dismissed the claim, reasoning that the reservation did not require any special preparations and therefore could not form the basis of a damages claim. On appeal, the Kiel Regional Court upheld the dismissal but clarified the legal reasoning. It held that while a table reservation does not create a binding contract, it does establish a pre-contractual relationship governed by good faith. Failing to honor a reservation without proper notice may amount to a breach of that duty, giving rise to liability for reliance damages. The court distinguished between two categories of potential damages. Expectation damages, representing lost profit (Erfüllungsinteresse), were rejected because no contractual duty to dine existed. Reliance damages (Vertrauensschaden), however, could in principle XXVII
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==