Hot food should be hot and standing water is not a fault of the tour

Travel agents can learn from a recent Supreme Court decision regarding the granting of a discount on the price of a tour as a result of a defect. Try to avoid such disputes - for example, by setting up a hotline or getting advice on problematic claims. Contact us!

During his stay, the travel agent's client repeatedly complained about the quality of the hotel's services - water not draining in the shower, monotonous and cold breakfast with limited choice, and the fact that the room is directly above the outdoor disco - noise until 11 pm. The client did not come to an agreement with the tour company and filed a lawsuit against them. The Court of First Instance found that the client was entitled to a discount on the price of the tour, namely for a breakfast offer that did not meet the expected standard of 5% (CZK 2,736.70), for non-draining water in the bathroom of 10% (CZK 5,473.40) and for increased noise of 10% (CZK 5,473.40). The Municipal Court denied the client a discount for the limited breakfast offer because a hot breakfast was not promised, because the description of the accommodation as "family" does not imply that it is a quiet location, and because the water coverage of the bathroom does not imply that it is non-functional, but the foregoing only supports the well-known fact that the humidity is much higher in seaside resorts, resulting in non-drying of the floor spaces. How did the Supreme Court view this great contradiction between the opinion of the District Court and the Municipal Court, which, incidentally, is encountered quite often in judgments?

First of all, the Municipal Court based its assessment of the content of the contract only on so-called "relevant information", which was wrong. It should be remembered that the primary determinant of whether or not a particular defect is a defect is the contract containing the specification of the tour, or the individual services (transport, accommodation, insurance, etc.), the catalogue (the offer) from which the customer draws specific information about the tour (the destination, the accommodation, including its location and description of the facilities, the services provided, etc.), and last but not least the pre-contractual information. It is only on the basis of a comprehensive assessment of all this information available to the customer at the time of conclusion of the contract that a conclusion can be drawn as to what assurances the tour operator has made regarding the characteristics of the tour, or as to the reasonableness of the customer's expectations.

As regards the cold kitchen, the Municipal Court's conclusion that there was no defect because the customer was not promised a hot meal as part of the breakfast does not stand. Even if it were true that cooked food or hot food (e.g. eggs) is not a normal part of a continental breakfast, if the establishment (the hotel) serves a breakfast with hot food as part of its service, there is no reason not to require a standard temperature.

Finally, with regard to water in the bathroom, while it is true that a wet floor where the shower is located will not constitute a defect in the tour, even if it is also a room used as a toilet, the difference between a 'wet floor' and a situation where the water does not 'drain' - that is, where the water remains 'standing' after the shower has been used - cannot be ignored, such a circumstance, even according to the Court of Appeal's deepest conviction, may constitute a certain discomfort, particularly from a hygienic point of view, especially if the bathroom is used by several persons and serves not only as a shower but also as a washroom and a toilet.

In a case such as this, where the Supreme Court has overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal, it will now be for the Municipal Court to reassess all the facts.

For travel agents, the length of the proceedings is also useful information from this dispute. The claimed tour took place between 19 August 2018 and 2 September 2018. The travel agent and its client have therefore been litigating for a relatively small amount in this case for almost four years and their dispute is clearly not yet over.