Package Travel Directive, link

It can be assumed that the consumer is able to understand if a contract concludes with the travel organiser’s intermediary has the travel organiser’s written consent. Time limits on requests for damages in terms and conditions of package travel contracts do not constitute an unfair term.

Relevance: Explaining certain aspects of package travel contracts as regards terms and conditions

The case concerned a claim launched against a travel organiser of package travel, alleging that certain aspects of its terms and conditions constitute unfair terms, particularly the travel organiser denying any liability for contracts concluded between the consumer and the organiser’s intermediary that lack explicit written consent from the organiser. Other alleged unfair terms included strictly limiting the possible time period (10 days) during which the consumer may submit a request for damages to the organiser after the package travel’s conclusion, etc.

Whether it can be assumed that the consumer is unable to learn if a contract concluded with the travel organiser’s intermediary has the travel organiser's explicit written consent or not. Whether the 10-day limit in the terms and conditions on the submission of request for damages constitutes an unfair term.

The Court of Appeal ruled that it can be assumed that the consumer is capable of learning which contracts he concludes with the travel organiser's intermediary have the latter’s written consent. It also reasoned that the travel organiser can only be held liable for the activities of the intermediary insofar as what relates to the services provided by the organiser. As for the other legal issue, the Court ruled that the 10-day limit does not affect the consumer’s ability to pursue damages via other legal means, and its ability to directly request damages from the organiser only serves to accelerate the resolution of any dispute. Thus, it does not constitute an unfair term.

Teljes szöveg: Teljes szöveg

Nincs találat

Nincs találat

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the lower court.