Since the company refused to refund the customer’s money, the customer filed a claim with the Small Claims Court in Safed.
The court held that a person who orders a vacation package from a travel agency expects to receive professional service and information before placing the order, and that the Issta company was obligated to disclose to the customer the Ministry of Health’s recommendation regarding the need for vaccination. Since the Issta company did not do so, it breached its duty of disclosure and professional advice toward the customer within the framework of its obligations as a travel agency.
It is reasonable to assume that the agent who sold the customer the vacation package well knew that the Ministry of Health recommends vaccination before arriving at the destination, and for his own reasons refrained from conveying this information to the customer.
In a fundamental and significant judgment on a similar matter (Standard Contracts Case 804/07, Standard Contracts Court in Jerusalem, Diesenhaus Unitours Travel and Tourism (1979) Ltd. v. the Attorney General et al.), the Standard Contracts Court held that a travel agency cannot hide behind the cover of an intermediary between the tourism supplier and the customer, and that it bears responsibility and a duty to provide the customer with the benefit of its experience and expertise.
When the travel agent did not bother to inform the customer of the Ministry of Health’s guideline, that agent breached the duty of disclosure anchored in contract law and tort law, and hence Issta’s liability. As a result, if a customer succeeds in proving that he would not have purchased the vacation package had he known the information before the purchase, it may be determined that the travel agent breached the duty of disclosure and the customer will be able to recover his money.
In its statement of defense, Issta raised a legal argument to the effect that vacation packages are not included in the right to cancel a distance-selling transaction as provided in the Consumer Protection Law, and therefore the customer is not entitled to any compensation. The court chose not to adopt this legal argument and held that the right to cancel a transaction under the Consumer Protection Law arises only after there is no ground for cancellation under the Contracts (General Part) Law and the Contracts (Remedies for Breach of Contract) Law.
To clarify the issue, one must first understand that the Consumer Protection Law is not intended to harm the consumer but rather to benefit him. Therefore, before turning to the Consumer Protection Law, the case must be examined under the magnifying glass of contract law.
Accordingly, the court held that the travel agent should have provided the information regarding the need for vaccination to the customer, and had the customer decided to take upon himself the responsibility of not being vaccinated, the agent would have been released from his obligation.
In order to balance the outcome of the case, it was held that since the customer could have checked the information about the desired destination on the internet, as he took the trouble to do after the order, this reduces the extent of Issta’s liability, and the customer was assigned contributory fault of 40%.
In sum, Issta was ordered to refund the customer’s money, less 40% for contributory fault.
- Do not give up your rights hastily without consulting an attorney on the matter.
- Even well-known and established suppliers in the field make consumer mistakes, and their answer should not be accepted as an absolute and final one.
- It is advisable to ask the right questions and investigate as much as possible before traveling to a new and unfamiliar place.
- Try to act sensibly and wisely before making the purchase, in order to avoid litigation in court that involves considerable financial expense and emotional resources.
The above is general information only and does not constitute legal advice; each case is examined on its own merits.
