Collective Commentary about the New Package Travel Directive

ARTICLE 21 | SARAH PRAGER 461 1. The agent – “Travel Choice” – was linked with the tour operator “First Choice” and part of the same corporate group. 2. The sales representative at the travel agent wore a uniform with the “First Choice” livery on it. 3. In evidence the sales representative said in terms that “Travel Choice” was an agent 5 for “First Choice” and had a quota of First Choice holidays that it had to sell to the public. The opposite result was obtained in Keppel Palmer v Exsus Travel Limited & Royal Westmorland Villas 6 , where the English based sales agent for Royal Westmoreland was absolved from liability because it had stated in clear terms on documents supplied to the consumer that it acted only as a sales agent for the Barbados based defendant who actually rented the holiday villa to Mrs Keppel Palmer 7 . These examples suffice to show the need for clarity around the role of the travel agent and tour operator respectively in the booking process, and, consequently, their potential liability, if any, in respect of any errors made in that process. Where there is legal uncertainty, it almost always operates to the disadvantage of the consumer rather than the trader, since the trader is likely to have taken more and more sophisticated legal advice than the consumer prior to entering into the contractual relationship. Under the old regime, in some cases the consumer was unable to recover damages from any entity, and, in addition, suffered the costs and anxiety associated with litigating against a party ultimately not liable for such errors. 2. THE RATIONALE FOR THE MODIFICATIONS MADE BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE PACKAGE TRAVEL AND LINKED TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS DIRECTIVE 2015 Article 21 of the new Directive is intended to bring some much-needed clarity to this position. Usually some clue as to the reasoning behind the inclusion of 5 It is highly unlikely that the representative knew of the legal consequences of what she had to say about agency, and in the view of the author her view of the matter should not have carried much weight. If the defendants were to rely on this argument, they ought, it is suggested, to have adduced evidence regarding the contractual relationship between Travel Choice and First Choice, including any agency agreement there may have been. 6 [2003] All ER (D) 183 (June). 7 The Barbados based defendant was found liable for defects in the villa, however.