Ítélkezési gyakorlat

  • Az ügy részletei
    • Nemzeti azonosító: Supreme Court, Judgement Pfv.V.22.081/2017/5.
    • Tagállam: Magyarország
    • Közhasználatú név:N/A
    • Határozat típusa: Legfelsőbb bírósági határozat
    • A határozat napja: 03/04/2019
    • Bíróság: Kúria
    • Tárgy:
    • Felperes:
    • Alperes:
    • Kulcsszavak: immovable property, insurance contract, real estate, travel organiser
  • Az irányelv cikkei
    Package Travel Directive, link Package Travel Directive, Article 17
  • Megjegyzés

    Travel organisers are bound to business insurance contracts they conclude as part of their legal obligations. Having a comparatively short amount of time to consider insurance offers does not invalidate such contracts if they are signed by the parties.

  • Tények

    The crux of the argument between the parties was an insurance contract between the plaintiff (a travel agency) and the respondent, which included the establishment of a mortgage on two immovable properties. This happened shortly before the plaintiff entered financial insolvency, rendering it unable (by the statements of its own representative) to arrange for the transportation of new travellers and the return of existing travellers. A Court found the plaintiff liable for arranging the return of travellers who took part in its services. Simultaneously, the respondent utilised its right to purchase and acquired the two properties, leading to the current dispute between the parties. The case went through two lower courts before the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

  • Jogi kérdés

    Whether the shortness of the period of time in which the plaintiff had to decide to accept the terms dictated by the respondent is sufficient enough to be considered coercion.

  • Határozat

    The Supreme Court reasoned that the rules on business insurances for travel agencies are controlled by law, and that the plaintiff should have understood that it would be expected to enter into an insurance contract in the last quarter of each fiscal year. Hence, its argument was invalid.

    Teljes szöveg: Teljes szöveg

  • Kapcsolódó ügyek

    Nincs találat

  • Jogi szakirodalom

    Nincs találat

  • Eredmény

    The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the appellant’s claim. It noted that the plaintiff should have been aware that it was expected to enter into an insurance contract in the last quarter of each fiscal year by law, and thus cannot claim coercion due to shortness of time in this instance.