be claimed if the restaurant had suffered actual losses through reliance on the reservation, such as wasted expenses or the loss of other paying customers. The plaintiff, however, failed to substantiate any such reliance damages. The court noted two potential forms of loss that could have justified compensation: first, the loss of business opportunities if other guests were turned away due to the reservation, and second, wasted expenditures such as the purchase of special food, decorations, or the hiring of additional staff. The plaintiff could not prove either type of loss. In fact, it admitted that having some tables remain empty was not unusual even during the trade fair period. Furthermore, the court emphasized the restaurant’s duty to mitigate damages. It held that the restaurant should have re-booked the table after about an hour if the party did not appear, and that after the first no-shows, it could have disregarded the remaining reservations entirely. Ultimately, the court ruled that while a customer’s unjustified failure to honor a reservation may, in principle, result in liability for reliance damages, no such damages were proven in this case. The ruling thereby limited recoverable losses to specific, demonstrable reliance costs rather than expected profit. The court further observed that restaurants are not without means of protection: they can require a cancellation penalty (Vertragsstrafe) or charge a reservation fee (mietähnliches Entgelt) to safeguard against such situations. The decision established a clear legal framework for restaurant no-shows under German law. A reservation is a step in pre-contractual negotiation rather than a binding hospitality contract. Liability can arise only when the restaurant can prove concrete losses suffered in reliance on the customer’s promise to appear. In practice, restaurants wishing to pursue such claims must maintain detailed documentation of any lost opportunities or non-recoverable costs. The ruling underscores the importance of distinguishing between moral obligations of courtesy and legally enforceable commitments in everyday business transactions. IV. Two-hour delay at a fine dining (up scale) restaurant The Amtsgericht of Hamburg in the case C 275/73, which established a customer’s right to a price reduction for significant service delays in a restaurant. The court affirmed that a two-hour delay in serving the main course, despite a fixed reservation, constitutes a defect in service, entitling the guest to reduce the final bill. XXVIII
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==