INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM, TRAVEL AND HOSPITALITY LAW However, if the Court concludes that Mr and Mrs Sherman would have gone ahead, they will not be entitled to a refund, but will be entitled to compensation based on the difference between the price which they paid and the value of the services actually supplied. For this purpose their complaints about the quality of service on board must be disregarded. In submissions to us, Mr Sherman described their experience on board as ‘hell’. That may be his view, but is not what the [CCJ] found. And he urged the parties to reach a settlement of a case which, after all, was “about a cruise in which nobody died or was injured or suffered any lasting damage”. 5. CONCLUSION It can be seen that this case illuminates a number of issues concerning the practical application of the PTRs/PTD to real life situations. Most importantly, for the travel industry, the good news is this; if a senior court says “The PTRs/PTD have this effect”, eg re contract formation or anything else, there is nothing which can be done to avoid the impact of that decision. But if the court says “you lose because of your booking conditions and/or because of the time you sent documents out”, the conditions can be rewritten or processes can be altered. The need to keep booking conditions, disclaimers etc under review at all times is a clear lesson from this case, as is the need to advise consumers not just of any pre-departure change, but also of their consequent rights.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==