total bill of 98.50 Deutsche Marks, he paid only 85.00, withholding the amount corresponding to the disputed dish. The restaurant owner subsequently filed an action seeking recovery of the outstanding 13.80 Deutsche Marks, equivalent to 7.06 euros. The plaintiff argued that the meal in question was properly prepared and served in accordance with professional standards. She described the culinary process in detail: the Sauerbraten had been marinated for four days in a vinegarbased solution with spices, seared in hot margarine, and cooked with vegetables and seasonings, before the sauce was thickened with starch and flour and reheated separately on the day of service. The red cabbage had been sliced and cooked for 45 minutes with bacon, clove-studded onion, spices, vinegar, sugar, and lard, cooled, and reheated in a water bath before being served. The defendant, by contrast, maintained that the Sauerbraten sauce tasted like that of a pork roast — floury and insipid — and that the red cabbage was overcooked and pale. He further argued that, having deducted the cost of the disputed meal from the total and paid 85.00 Deutsche Marks, he had in fact overpaid by 0.30 Marks (equivalent to 0.15 euros), which was not intended as a gratuity. The court held the action admissible notwithstanding its minor value, affirming that there is no “de minimis” limit (Bagatellgrenze) for judicial claims. To recognise such a threshold, it reasoned, would deny justice to legitimate creditors by barring them from enforcing small but valid claims. Turning to the substance of the case, the court found that the plaintiff had not discharged her burden of proving the proper quality of the dish. It noted that a Bewirtungsvertrag is a mixed contract incorporating elements of service, work, and sale, but that the legal relationship regarding payment for a prepared meal is governed primarily by the law of works (Werkvertragsrecht). Under this framework, the obligation to pay arises only once the customer — as the recipient of the work — accepts the performance. Since the defendant explicitly refused acceptance, payment would only be due if such refusal were unjustified, which in turn required the restaurant to prove the absence of defects (Mangelfreiheit). Because the meal was no longer available for inspection, the court relied on witness statements and the expert testimony of a culinary instructor. The expert affirmed that no single mandatory method exists for preparing Sauerbraten or red cabbage and that the method described by the plaintiff was conventional and technically sound. Nevertheless, this did not confirm the quality of the specific dish served. He also explained that early-season cabbage, typical of August, tends to be paler and may vary in texture from firm to soft. The waitress’s report stated XXXII
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==