THE BOTTOM LINE
- Compliance is Non-Negotiable: A Dutch court has dismissed a travel company’s entire claim for cancellation fees because the company failed to prove it had met its mandatory pre-contractual information duties to the consumer.
- Document Your Digital Trail: Businesses selling to consumers online must be prepared to provide courts with complete evidence of the customer journey, including the specific terms and disclosures presented during the booking process.
- Procedural Errors Have Financial Consequences: A seemingly valid contractual claim can be completely wiped out if a company cannot substantiate its compliance with consumer protection laws, leading to a total loss of the claimed amount and associated legal costs.
THE DETAILS
This case involved a straightforward commercial dispute that took an unexpected turn. Travel company Sawadee sued a family for €8,972 in cancellation fees. The family had booked a trip to Indonesia but cancelled just one day before departure, triggering a 100% cancellation fee as per the company’s terms. The defendants argued that the fee was unjust as the cancellation was due to a family emergency. On the face of it, the travel company appeared to have a strong contractual claim. However, the court’s focus shifted entirely away from the reasons for cancellation.
The Amsterdam District Court zeroed in on the company’s legal obligations as a business selling package travel to consumers. Under Dutch law, which implements EU-wide consumer protection directives, traders must provide customers with extensive and specific information before a contract is concluded. This includes details on the travel package, cancellation policies, and consumer rights. Crucially, courts are required to review compliance with these rules on their own initiative (ex officio), regardless of whether the consumer raises the issue in their defence.
The travel company’s case collapsed at this critical juncture. When asked to prove it had fulfilled its information duties, Sawadee failed to provide the necessary evidence. The company submitted the wrong version of its general terms and conditions and, critically, could not produce screenshots or other records of the online booking process that the consumers went through. The document it provided was merely a sample brochure, not proof of the actual contractual steps. This failure made it impossible for the judge to verify that the legally required information had been clearly presented to the consumers before they booked. As a result, the court concluded that the company had not met its burden of proof and dismissed the entire claim.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Amsterdam
