Restaurant reservation deposits, no-shows and cancelled events in Peru: can they charge you?

What the law does not say

No Peruvian rule deals specifically with restaurant reservations. There is no rule on how much a restaurant can ask as a deposit, or on how much it can charge you for not showing up. What exists are general Civil Code rules on arras (earnest money) and penalties, and rules in Ley 29571, the consumer code, on information and abusive clauses. This page applies them to your case and tells you where the answer is not clear.

First: what were you told?

Before arras or penalties, the question is whether you were told the conditions. Article 2 of Ley 29571 says:

“El proveedor tiene la obligación de ofrecer al consumidor toda la información relevante para tomar una decisión o realizar una elección adecuada de consumo, así como para efectuar un uso o consumo adecuado de los productos o servicios.”

(The business must give the consumer all the information relevant to making a proper consumer decision.)

Whether the deposit is lost if you do not show up is information that changes your decision to book. Our reading is that a no-show charge you were not told about before paying is hard to defend. The law does not say this in those words.

If the deposit works as arras

The Civil Code has two kinds of arras. Confirmatory arras (arras confirmatorias) close the deal. Article 1477 says:

“La entrega de arras confirmatorias importa la conclusión del contrato. En caso de cumplimiento, quien recibió las arras las devolverá o las imputará sobre su crédito, según la naturaleza de la prestación.”

(Handing over confirmatory arras concludes the contract. If everything is performed, whoever received them returns them or credits them against what they are owed.)

At a restaurant, crediting them means taking the deposit off your bill. Article 1478 says what happens if someone fails:

“Si la parte que hubiese entregado las arras no cumple la obligación por causa imputable a ella, la otra parte puede dejar sin efecto el contrato conservando las arras. Si quien no cumplió es la parte que las ha recibido, la otra puede dejar sin efecto el contrato y exigir el doble de las arras.”

(If the party who handed over the arras fails through its own fault, the other side can cancel and keep them. If the party who received them fails, the other side can cancel and demand double.)

In short:

Withdrawal arras (arras de retractación) are different. They give a right to back out, but article 1480 says they are “sólo es válida en los contratos preparatorios” (valid only in preparatory contracts). If you withdraw, you lose them. If the restaurant withdraws, it must return them doubled (article 1481).

The open question: what is your deposit?

If the restaurant asked for a deposit without explaining what it was, the law does not say whether it is confirmatory arras, withdrawal arras or a plain advance on your bill. Each answer leads somewhere different. What can be said:

• A reservation is, in principle, the contract itself, not a promise to contract later. If so, withdrawal arras, which are valid only in preparatory contracts, are a poor fit. This is our reading.
• If the money was only an advance on your bill, no arras rule lets the restaurant keep it just because you did not show up.
• If nobody explained anything, go back to article 2: the missing information counts against the restaurant.

If what you agreed is a penalty

Many event contracts say something like “if you cancel less than X days before, you lose Y %”. That is a penalty clause (cláusula penal). Article 1341 says the penalty “tiene el efecto de limitar el resarcimiento a esta prestación” (caps compensation at that amount), unless compensation for further damage was also agreed. In principle, they cannot charge you the penalty and other damages on top.

Two more limits:

• Your fault. Article 1343 says the penalty “sólo puede exigirse cuando el incumplimiento obedece a causa imputable al deudor, salvo pacto en contrario” (is only due when the breach is attributable to the debtor, unless agreed otherwise).
• The amount. Article 1346 says:

“El juez, a solicitud del deudor, puede reducir equitativamente la pena cuando sea manifiestamente excesiva o cuando la obligación principal hubiese sido en parte o irregularmente cumplida.”

(A judge, at the debtor’s request, can fairly reduce a penalty that is manifestly excessive.)

Note that the article speaks of a judge. Before Indecopi, the route is different: arguing that the penalty is an abusive clause. Article 52.1 of Ley 29571 says abusive clauses without effect “son inaplicadas por la autoridad administrativa” (are set aside by the administrative authority).

Abusive clauses in bookings and events

Event contracts are usually standard-form: the restaurant writes them and you sign. Article 49.1 of Ley 29571 says that in such contracts, terms not individually negotiated that, “en contra de las exigencias de la buena fe” (against good faith), put you “en una situación de desventaja o desigualdad” (at a disadvantage) are abusive and “inexigibles” (unenforceable).

Two specific rules:

• Article 50, literal b), makes absolutely ineffective any clause that lets the business “suspender o resolver unilateralmente un contrato” (suspend or terminate a contract unilaterally), unless a legal provision says otherwise. A line such as “the venue may cancel your event at its discretion” falls here.
• Article 51, literal a), treats as abusive, depending on the case, clauses that impose “obstáculos onerosos o desproporcionados” (onerous or disproportionate obstacles) on exercising your rights. If a cancellation penalty is out of proportion, this is the rule to argue before Indecopi. Whether it is decided case by case.

If the restaurant is the one that cancels

If the restaurant does not deliver the service it offered, that is a suitability (idoneidad) problem. Article 18 of Ley 29571 defines it as “la correspondencia entre lo que un consumidor espera y lo que efectivamente recibe, en función a lo que se le hubiera ofrecido” (the match between what the consumer expects and what they actually get, based on what was offered), and article 19 makes the business answer for it. If your deposit was also arras, article 1478 lets you demand double.

If it cancelled for a reason it is not responsible for, the rule changes. Article 1315 defines force majeure (caso fortuito o fuerza mayor) as “un evento extraordinario, imprevisible e irresistible” (an extraordinary, unforeseeable and irresistible event). And article 1431 says:

“En los contratos con prestaciones recíprocas, si la prestación a cargo de una de las partes deviene imposible sin culpa de los contratantes, el contrato queda resuelto de pleno derecho. En este caso, el deudor liberado pierde el derecho a la contraprestación y debe restituir lo que ha recibido. Empero, las partes pueden convenir en que el riesgo esté a cargo del acreedor.”

(If one side’s performance becomes impossible through no one’s fault, the contract ends automatically, and that side must return what it received. The parties may agree that the other side bears that risk.)

In practice: if the restaurant could not open for a truly extraordinary reason, it owes you back what you paid. Whether it also owes you double the arras is not clear. Article 1478 does not repeat, for that case, the requirement of fault, but article 1431 deals exactly with impossibility without fault. We found no rule or decision that settles it.

The last sentence of article 1431 allows the parties to agree that you bear the risk. In a standard-form contract, that clause could be challenged as abusive under article 49. This is our reading.

Can you just change your mind?

None of the rules we reviewed gives you a general right to back out of a paid reservation. If you are wondering whether the consumer code has a “right of withdrawal”, we explain it in right of withdrawal in online purchases.

Arras also come up, with different practical rules, when buying a home. Your other rights as a customer are in restaurants, bars and cafés. To complain, start with the complaints book.

What this page does not cover

We did not review Indecopi decisions or court rulings on reservations, no-shows or events at restaurants. We do not cover bookings made through third-party apps or platforms, charges made to a card held as a guarantee, or the court procedure for asking a judge to reduce a penalty.