PTo obtain compensation for a language stay that did not go as planned, it is better to gather evidence – photographs, certificates – as the following case shows. From September 17, 2018 to May 24, 2019, Mr.lle X, 18, is on a language course in the United States. On her return, she requests a refund of 18,485 euros. The organizer, EF International, refused to grant it to her, Mlle X and his mother are suing him.
They raise three grievances: firstly, Mr.lle X was supposed to be housed with her boyfriend, Mr Y. However, they were housed separately, Mrlle X finding himself with other men. Second, the accommodation was « unhealthy »as proven by photographs.
Third, while the purpose of the stay was the« immersion »the student was accommodated with fifteen other French people, in a family “very little present”. When she requested a change, EF offered her a second host family, which other students attest was also “ unhealthy ” She accepted accommodation on EF’s campus, for an additional fee, before moving to another city.
Chronicle | Article reserved for our subscribers When the travel agency forgets to inform its clients about the need for a visa to stay in India
Add to your selections
EF Company Responds That Request to Be Housed with Boyfriend Was Not “not entered into the contractual field” ; that the applicants, “procedural”are seeking reimbursement for a stay they enjoyed. That at the end of the stay, the student’s level of English improved, going from B1 to C1.
Contractual field
The Marseille judicial court, which will rule on July 11, 2024, notes that the clients did indeed express by email the wish that Mr.lle X and Mr Y be accommodated together, and that EF responded that this would be the case, “subject to acceptance by the New York school”. He therefore considers that “this requirement entered into the contractual field by the agreement of wills between the parties”.
But it was only five days before departure that EF informed them of “the occurrence of the reserve”namely the refusal of school. Without proving that it was impossible for him to do so earlier. “There is therefore a breach by the limited liability company EF International of its obligation, not of joint accommodation of Mr.lle X and Mr. Y, (…) but to its obligation of speed in informing its co-contractor of a change concerning a particular requirement formed in advance…”
Read also | Article reserved for our subscribers “Our employers consider English to be a given for our generation”: the winning return of language stays
Add to your selections
The court notes that the mention “carefully selected host families” which appears in the advertising brochure is not part of the contractual scope. However, he considers that“it is in the very nature of the contractual obligation [de l’organisateur] that accommodation is provided in decent conditions”. He therefore considers that the company has “failed to fulfil its accommodation obligation”.
You have 21.54% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
Related News :