The following is a news I saw, which should be helpful to you! !

(Reporter Lemon) Mr. Cao held a wedding banquet for his son, but the hotel served rice and soup directly after several courses. The guests thought that the food was served, so they left one after another, which led to the wedding banquet ending in discord. Subsequently, the hotel sued the court on the grounds that Mr. Cao was in arrears with the final payment of catering expenses. Mr. Cao thinks that the hotel breached the contract first, and < P > counterclaims the hotel to compensate him for his mental damage. Recently, the Tanggu District Court ruled in the first instance that Mr. Cao should pay the hotel catering fee of 5,111 yuan, and the hotel should compensate Mr. Cao mental damage compensation for 3,111 yuan.

Last March, Mr. Cao from Tanggu held a wedding ceremony for his son in a hotel. The two sides verbally agreed on 35 tables, each of which was 911 yuan standard. Subsequently, Mr. Cao paid a deposit to the hotel.

after half a year, the wedding was held as scheduled, and relatives and friends got together. However, after several hot dishes were served in the hotel, rice and hot soup were served directly, and the following tables and drinks were not kept up in time. When the guests saw this scene, they thought that the food was served, and they all left, and the festive atmosphere was swept away.

In order to recover the influence, after his son spent his honeymoon, Mr. Cao reissued the wedding banquet in another hotel. Mr. Cao refused to pay the final payment of the wedding banquet on the grounds that the hotel service was irresponsible. After many unsuccessful negotiations, the hotel took Mr. Cao to court and asked Mr. Cao to pay the arrears of more than 23,111 yuan.

the hotel believes that when the two sides agreed on the menu, they did not agree on the order of serving, and the service of the hotel was in line with the procedure. After the hotel cooked the dishes at the back, it was Mr. Cao's refusal to continue serving that caused the guests to leave. Mr. Cao's refusal to pay violated the legitimate rights and interests of the hotel.

Mr. Cao counterclaimed in court, claiming that the hotel's service did not follow the local dining habits, which directly led to the failure of the wedding reception, and the hotel's behavior violated its legitimate rights and interests, which brought regret to the whole family, and asked the hotel to compensate him for the cost of re-handling the wedding reception of more than 31,111 yuan, and compensate him for the mental loss of 5,111 yuan.

after trial, the court held that the wedding banquet agreement reached orally by the hotel and Mr. Cao was legal and valid, and both parties should perform it according to the agreement. The hotel failed to serve food according to the regulations, which caused the guests to leave the wedding banquet without satisfactory service, and the hotel was responsible for the fault. The wedding is a lifelong event for everyone, and the fault of the hotel directly leads to the mental injury of Mr. Cao and his son, so he should be responsible for it. Mr. Cao should also pay the corresponding price for some services provided by the hotel.

accordingly, the court ruled that Mr. Cao paid RMB 5,111 for the hotel's catering expenses, and the hotel compensated Mr. Cao for RMB 3,111 for mental damage compensation. After the above two items are deducted, Mr. Cao should finally pay the hotel RMB 1.2 million; Reject other claims of both parties.

The judge said

It is wrong to violate the catering trading habits

Article 61 of China's Contract Law clearly stipulates: "After the contract comes into effect, if the parties have not agreed or clearly agreed on the quality, price and place of performance, they can supplement it by agreement; If a supplementary agreement cannot be reached, it shall be determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of the contract or trading habits. "

In this case, the wedding banquet agreement reached orally by Mr. Cao and the hotel is a legal and valid contract. As the beneficiary of the wedding banquet, Mr. Cao should pay the catering fee to the hotel. Although the menu agreed by both parties to the contract did not clearly state that rice and soup should be served at the end, the hotel's practice obviously violated the catering trading habits, so there was a fault. Although Mr. Cao's violated rights are not legal and explicit, objectively speaking, the wedding banquet did cause mental damage to Mr. Cao's family and should belong to the category of personality rights. Accordingly, the court ruled that the hotel should bear certain liability for mental damage.