Claim for Cancellation Fee in Canceled Performances – Decision of the Munich District Court
The Munich District Court ruled on October 6, 2025 (Case No. 222 C 15312/5) that a music group has no entitlement to a so-called cancellation fee in the event of short-notice cancellation of several contractually agreed performances if the contract lacks provisions regarding cancellation by the client. The decision highlights key aspects of contract law concerning artistic services and emphasizes the importance of clear agreements about withdrawal and compensation consequences.
Facts and Background of the Legal Dispute
A music group was engaged for a total of four events in a summer festival series. The dates were scheduled to take place outdoors in July 2022. A few days before the first event, the organizer informed the music group about the cancellation of all four performances. The reason given was water damage at the event location caused by unforeseeable weather conditions.
The music group then claimed the contractually agreed remuneration for all canceled dates, referring to the nature of their booking as a fixed contract. Since they no longer had the opportunity to accept replacement engagements due to the short-notice cancellations, they demanded a flat-rate compensation in full.
The Court’s Decision
Contractual Basis and Absence of Cancellation Fee Clause
The court initially determined that the contract concluded between the parties contained no express provision for remuneration in case of cancellation by the organizer. In particular, no cancellation fee or flat penalty, which are sometimes customary in the event and concert industry, had been agreed upon. Therefore, it had to be clarified whether the music group’s claim could be derived from general obligations law, such as analogously from § 615 sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB).
No Delay of Acceptance by the Organizer
The court denied a claim for remuneration due to non-acceptance of the service by the organizer. The reasoning was that a delay of acceptance within the meaning of § 293 BGB presupposes that the music group was capable of performing its contractually owed service as agreed. Since the outdoor event was made impossible by the water damage and this circumstance was obviously unforeseeable for both parties, the case constituted an instance of the so-called “exemption from performance due to impossibility” within the meaning of § 275 paragraph 1 BGB.
No Analogous Application of Delay of Acceptance
The judgment further states that an analogous application of the rules on delay of acceptance is not appropriate in cases of non-fault cancellations and missing contractual agreements. The music group bears the risk of lacking contractual protection of their remuneration interests if the contract contains no express provision for cancellations. The court explained that the parties had the opportunity to include cancellation clauses in the contract but failed to do so.
Force Majeure and Disruption of the Contractual Basis
The organizer also successfully invoked disruption of the contractual basis (§ 313 BGB) or force majeure. The court recognized the weather-related destruction of the event site as an objectively overriding impediment to the fulfillment of the contract and pointed out that, in this respect too, no compensation claims by the music group existed.
Relevance for Contract Partners in Artistic Engagements
The decision of the Munich District Court makes clear that artists and organizers should focus particularly on provisions concerning event cancellations and their consequences for remuneration when drafting contracts. In the absence of explicit agreements, the risk of performance disruption or impossibility generally remains with the party obliged to perform. There is usually no statutory entitlement to cancellation compensation in such situations.
Moreover, the judgment indicates that in long-term obligations and recurring performance duties (such as multiple agreed performances), it must be carefully examined whether and to what extent special contractual risk distribution mechanisms—such as for cases of force majeure or short-notice event cancellations—are provided.
Implications for Practice and Contract Drafting
The judgment provides reason to review existing contracts for regulatory gaps. Organizers and artists should ensure their contractual rights and obligations, including any compensation claims for cancellation fees, are clearly defined. Without concrete agreements, judicial claims for remuneration in case of event cancellations are subject to significant uncertainty.
Distinction from Cases of Delay of Acceptance and Impossibility
In practice, it should be noted that the conditions for acceptance delay are only met if the client unjustifiably refuses the artist’s services despite their readiness to perform. However, if there is an objective impediment, it is generally not considered a simple refusal or delay.
Industry-Specific Particularities
In particular, the music and event industry frequently faces the issue of unavoidable event cancellations due to weather-dependent events. It is advisable to draft contracts with foresight to prevent later disputes over fees and claims for damages.
Conclusion
The decision of the Munich District Court clearly demonstrates the importance of careful contract drafting in the field of artistic services, especially regarding remuneration claims in the event of show cancellations. For questions concerning contractual provisions related to event bookings or uncertainties about fee protection, the attorneys at MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte are available to their clients.
