Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: 1. afd. nr. B-1721-03
    • Member State: Denmark
    • Common Name:Sparta Hunting Club v. Tage Pors et. al.
    • Decision type: Other
    • Decision date: 20/09/2004
    • Court: Østre Landsret (Others)
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff:
    • Defendant:
    • Keywords:
  • Directive Articles
    Package Travel Directive, Article 4, 5.
  • Headnote
    A package travel including bear hunting in Canada did not conform with statements in brochures cf. the Package Travel Act §5, subsec. 1, implementing art 3,2 in the Package Travel Directive (90/314). The consumers were entitled to a proportionate reduction of the price paid.
  • Facts
    The Sparta Hunting Club sold bear hunting travels to Canada. In 1999 the Club marketed “trophy hunting” in Alberta, where the conditions to hunt bears according to the Club’s brochures were especially good. The arrangement could not be carried out in 2001. Instead the Club offered a similar package travel to Saskatchewan claiming that the conditions for bear hunting there were at least just as good. Four consumers paid a total of DKK 70.400 for the package travel.

    The four consumers saw no bear whatsoever during their stay and brought a complaint to the Travel Arbitration Board and were awarded a total of DKK 20.000 as a proprotionate reduction of the price. The Club did not comply with the decision and the consumers brought the case before the courts who reached the same result as did the Travel Arbitration Board.
  • Legal issue
    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.
  • Decision

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result