- The case involves a dispute over whether the provision of an alcoholic interval drink should be considered as an ancillary service to the main service of granting access to a theater performance, or as a separate service
- The appellant argues that the interval drink is an ancillary service that enhances the main service of access to the performance.
- The appellant cites a previous court ruling to support their argument.
- The appellant also argues that the fixed price for a ticket, which includes access to the performance, use of the cloakroom, and the interval drink, indicates that these are ancillary services.
- The respondent argues that the provision of an interval drink has a separate value and is not solely related to the access to the performance.
- The respondent states that visitors come to the theater for the performance, not for the interval drink, and therefore the interval drink has a separate value.
- The court must determine whether the provision of the interval drink is an independent service or an ancillary service to the main service of access to the performance.
Source: uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
