sum of €633.10, thus excluding any personal liability of the director. It further determined that the payment obligation was due only when a proper invoice was issued, in accordance with § 27310 BGB. The decision also examined the evidentiary value of a “Strichliste” (a tally sheet commonly used in restaurants to record beverage consumption), recognising it as sufficient proof but limiting its evidential weight to the entries signed by the director’s spouse. The case underpins a wider analysis of hospitality contracts and the allocation of the burden of proof in German civil proceedings. The court clarified the legal nature of the hospitality agreement (Bewirtungsvertrag), the circumstances under which a service provider can demand payment, and the client’s right to receive an invoice that complies with statutory tax law requirements. It concluded that the contract had been concluded with the company celebrating its corporate jubilee and not with its managing director in a personal capacity, rejecting the claim brought against him individually. This finding rested on objective evidence, including invitations and invoices issued by the restaurant and the testimony of witnesses, all confirming the corporate character of the event. With respect to the amount in dispute, the court accorded significant evidentiary value to the tally sheet used to record beverages consumed, finding that it gave rise to a factual presumption of accuracy. This presumption was reinforced by the signature of the managing director’s wife, who, although not a legal representative of the company, acted as a credible witness to the beverages listed therein. However, the court limited the company’s liability to the sum reflected on the signed list, since the claimant failed to prove that additional beverages added after the signature were included in the original agreement. Accordingly, only € 633.10 was deemed payable, corresponding to the items confirmed at the time of signing, while an additional € 61.30 claimed for later entries was disallowed. The judgment also addressed the company’s right to withhold payment pending 10 “Right of retention (1) I f the obligor has a claim that is due against the obligee under the same legal relationship as that on which the obligation is based, he may, unless the obligation leads to a different conclusion, refuse the performance owed by him until the performance owed to him is rendered (right of retention). (2) A person who is obliged to return an object has the same right, if he is entitled to a claim that is due on account of outlays for the object or on account of damage caused to him by the object, unless he obtained the object by means of an intentionally committed tort. (3) The obligee may avert the exercise of the right of retention by providing security. The providing of security by guarantors is excluded.”. XXXIV
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==