Retspraksis

  • Sagsoplysninger
    • Nationalt ID-nr.: Ø.L.D. 3. december 2010 i anke 16. afd. B-1069-10
    • Medlemsstat: Danmark
    • Almindeligt anvendt navn:N/A
    • Afgørelsestype: Afgørelse fra en appeldomstol
    • Afgørelsesdato: 03/12/2010
    • Retsinstans: Østre Landsret
    • Emne:
    • Sagsøger: Unknown
    • Sagsøgt: N-Rejser
    • Nøgleord: liability, medical , package travel
  • Direktivets artikler
    Package Travel Directive, Article 2, 1. Package Travel Directive, Article 2, 1., (a) Package Travel Directive, Article 2, 1., (b) Package Travel Directive, Article 2, 1., (c) Package Travel Directive, Article 5, 2. Package Travel Directive, Article 5, 2., -
  • Indledende note
    (1) A trip that includes flight and accommodation is a package travel regardless of whether the purpose of the trip is for the customer to have medical work done.

    (2) An organizer is not liable for a loss suffered by the costumer as a consequence of the third party providing medical services failing to fulfill the contract, regardless of the latter being the undisputed purpose of the trip.
  • Fakta
    The defendant was a travel agency that planned and offered trips to Hungary for their customers to have cheap dental work done there. The plaintiff purchased one of said trips but the dental work done in Hungary was subpar, resulting in the plaintiff suffering a loss.
  • Juridisk spørgsmål
    (1) Is a trip that includes flight and accommodation but has the purpose of the customer having medical work done a package travel?

    (2) Is an organizer liable for a loss suffered by the costumer as a consequence of the third party providing medical services failing to fulfill the contract, if this was the purpose of the trip?
  • Afgørelse

    The court stated that dental work performed in connection with a package travel fell outside the scope of Section 22 of the Package Travel Act.


    Hele teksten: Hele teksten

  • Relaterede sager

    Ingen resultater

  • Retslitteratur

    Ingen resultater

  • Resultat
    The plaintiff's claim was dismissed.