When the language stay does not go as planned

PIn order to receive compensation for a language stay that did not go as planned, it is best to gather evidence – photographs, certificates – as the following case shows. From 17 September 2018 to 24 May 2019, M^she X, 18 years old, is on a language stay in the United States. Upon his return he requested a refund of 18,485 euros. The organizer, EF International, refused to grant it, M^she X and his mother assign it.

They present three complaints: first, M^she X was to be accommodated with her boyfriend, Mr Y. However, they were accommodated separately, M.^she X meeting other men. Secondly, the accommodation was “unsanitary”as the photographs show.

Thirdly, although the purpose of the stay was“immersion”The student stayed with fifteen other French people in a family “very little gift”. When she requested a change, EF offered her a second host family, whose accommodation, according to other students, was also “ unsanitary “. She accepted on-campus accommodation at EF, for an additional fee, before moving to another city.

EF company responds that the request to accommodate her boyfriend was not “it does not fall within the contractual scope” ; that the plaintiffs, “procedural”They are requesting a refund for a stay they enjoyed. At the end of the stay the student’s English level improved, going from B1 to C1.

Contractual scope

The Marseille court, which rules on July 11, 2024, notes that customers have expressed by email the desire for M^she X and Mr. Y are staying together, and EF replied that this would be the case, “subject to acceptance by the New York school”. Therefore consider that “This requirement entered into the contractual scope by agreement between the parties”.

However, it was only five days before departure that EF informed them of “the occurrence of the reservation”That is, refusal to go to school. Without proving that it was impossible for him to do so before. “Therefore, this is a breach by the limited liability company EF International of its obligation, not the joint accommodation of M^she X and Mr. Y, (…) but rather to its obligation to promptly inform its co-contractor of a change relating to a particular requirement formed in advance…”

The court notes that the mention “carefully selected host families” which appears in the advertising brochure is not part of the contractual scope. However, he believes that“It is in the very nature of the contractual obligation [de l’organisateur] that accommodation is provided in decent conditions”. Therefore, it considers that the company has “failed to fulfill its accommodation obligation.”

You have 21.54% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.