YouShould a travel agency in charge of organizing a tailor-made trip verify that its clients will have the right to enter the destination country? This is the question raised by the following case.
In January 2019, M. and Mme X contacted several operators so they could organize a stay in Hawaii for his forty-fifth wedding anniversary and his wife’s 70th birthday.
On January 8, 2019, the online agency Marco Vasco presented them with a quote of 19,300 euros, for a stay from January 25 to February 12, 2019. The next day, they sent them a contract proposal by email. It includes a hypertext link, which takes them to the details of the offer (stops, flights, hotels and necessary administrative procedures). They sign it and pay the full amount.
In fact, the X believe that they can travel to the American archipelago with a simple electronic travel authorization, the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). However, since their passports were stamped by Iranian authorities in 2013, they would have to obtain a visa (according to a US law of January 21, 2016, retroactive to 2011), which would take at least four weeks.
They only realized when they received their travel documents on January 22, 2019. Realizing that they could not leave, they asked for a refund, which the company refused.
“Have a free mind”
They referred the matter to the tourism and travel mediator and then to the Beauvais judicial court, arguing that the agency should not have simply sent a hyperlink to elderly people with poor computer skills. They did not win the case, the mediator liked the court ruling according to which the company had provided them with the pre-contractual information required by the Tourism Code (article L 211-8 requires, in particular, information on the “border crossing conditions” and article R 211-4 of the “general information” on passports and visas).
The Amiens court, to which they appeal, also admits it, on November 17, 2022. But does it judge it? “in the case of a personalized and high-end service”the agency was subject to an obligation of ” advice “. It orders him to reimburse them 19,000 euros for having “miss the opportunity to not subscribe to this trip”.
The court points out, in fact, that the agency presents itself as “The success story of a tailor-made travel startup in France”and its documentation specifies: “To live the trip with all the intensity it deserves, you must have a free mind, without having anything else to think about other than enjoying the present moment. This is what we guarantee you. » She concludes that she “placed M. and Mme “.
You have 32.7% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
