He rented a hotel in Miami and was unable to travel due to the pandemic: the court forced the travel agency to pay him $325,000

The moments of the pandemic in which thousands of scheduled trips failed and passengers were stranded in different parts were left behind, but some consequences persist to this day: a travel agency was sentenced by the Río Tercero court to compensate a traveler who was unable to travel during the health crisis.

The Civil, Commercial, Conciliation and Family Court of the City of Cordoba, responsible for Silvana Asnal, condemned the travel agency Almond A give money backin addition to the payment of fines and other compensation, which a client had paid for the reservation of accommodation in the city of MiamiUnited States, for a total of four adults and two children, where he planned to stay with his family in 2020.

The court ordered the company to return to the plaintiff the sum of $75,807 for lost hotel reservations, in addition to other $100,000 for moral and moral prejudice.

But that was not all, he also ordered the payment of a fine in favor of the victim of $150,000; all three amounts must be paid with applicable interest from June 2020 to September 2022.

This means that the applicant will receive a sum of at least $325,807 for the trip he lost due to the pandemic since the company, at the beginning of 2020, did not listen to the client’s request to return the money or postpone the agreed stay.

viewed by GlobeLiveMediathe Almundo travel agency declined to comment.

One of the foundations of the judge is that since it is a Internet Hiringthe complainant’s position is even more unfavorable and stated: “The supplier’s duty to inform in electronic contracts must be satisfied before the web-based procurement system imposes on the consumer acceptance of the terms and conditions; and, in compliance with it, the employer must provide relevant, truthful and sufficient information in a clear and understandable manner on the main characteristics of the contract, its legal and economic conditions”.

Judge Asnal said the company’s failure was evident not only because it failed to refund the money the customer paid for a service he did not receive, but also because did not offer an alternative valid changes or a solution to the problem.

In addition, the judge understood that the plaintiff had suffered “emotional harm (due to the painful situation) and economic harm (with rising inflation, with a loss of 100%)”. And he said that if today this family wants to go to the same place, they would have to pay more than double because of inflation.

In the sentence it says that Almundo had to return the money, because “You can never charge for a service you haven’t provided”. It is also stated that in the middle “the complainant received evasive answers and eventually they stopped responding to him”.

Then, on June 15 of that year, he filed a complaint with the Consumer Protection Office of the province of Córdoba. Finally, the sentence was dated September 22, but it was only in the last hours that it was made public by the judiciary. The decision is based on what is required by the Consumer Defense Law, the Civil Code and the National Constitution.

Continue reading: