The High Court stated that the information in the Club’s brochure concerning Saskatchewan was a part of the contract between the Club and the four consumers, cf. § 5, subsec. 2, of the Package Travel Act implementing art. 3,2 of the Package Travel Directive (90/314). Because only one socalled „bait“ had been „active“ during the six hunting days and because the Club had made no reservation concerning the weather during the period in question, the package travel did not conform with the contract and the consumers were entitled to compensation.