contained in the fifth final provision of Law 44/2006, of 29 December, so that the work of the regulator was limited to the incorporation and harmonisation of the old text of the LVC with the rest of the rules that the TRLGDCU came to integrate in order to harmonise it. On the contrary, the opportunity was taken to go a step further and to clarify the aspects of the controversial liability of the parties to the package travel contract, which led to its modification, at least for those of us who had supported the thesis of the joint liability of the participating agencies , since, as I have said, this 13 liability changes into a joint and several liability of the various travel agencies involved in the contract, regardless of their status as organiser or retailer (now retailer). This liability is clear from the wording of the second paragraph of article 162.1, which, although equally deficient as its predecessor (article 11 of the LVC) , tended to indicate that "the liability towards the consumer will be 14 joint and several for all the entrepreneurs, whether they are organisers or retailers, jointly involved in the contract, whatever its type and the relations existing between them (...)". The wording of this provision could be defended on the grounds that where at least two travel agencies are involved in the same package travel contract, one of which is the organiser and the other the retailer, both are liable to the consumer for the lack of conformity or breach of contract, even if it is not attributable to them, because this partial or defective performance falls within the scope of management of the other agency or agencies involved in the contract . 15 And although, in my opinion, this solution has distorted the liability that the 1995 legislator intended to impose on these companies in the package travel contract, it has had the positive effect of giving greater legal certainty to Vid. Zubiri De Salinas, 2020 b, p. 176. 13 Thus, I pointed it out in González Cabrera, 2012, p. 119. He also criticises the lack of clarity of the 14 precept Pérez Escolar, 2013, p. 143. On the contrary, he considers it to be a clear precept Martínez Espín, 2012, p. 129. This is the interpretation of most of the doctrine. Vid. Algaba Ros, (2006 a), pp. 245 and f.; Álvarez Rubio, 15 2011, p. 172; Bech Serrat, 2008, p. 64; Boldó Roda, 2001, pp. 758 and ff.; Coll Carreños, 2010, pp. 110 and f.; García López, 2010, p. 45; Gómez Calle, 2011, pp. 529 and f.; Gómez Calle, E. La responsabilidad de los organizadores y detallistas en el contrato de viaje combinado", in Realidades y tendencias del derecho en el siglo XXI: Tomo IV, Temis, Bogotá, 2010, pp. 754 f.; Gómez Lozano, 2013, p. 622; González Cabrera, 2012, p. 119; González Fernández, 2008, p. 1074; Martín Osante, 2009, pp. 1055 f.; Martínez Espín, 2011, p. 150; Moralejo Imbernón, 2009, pp. 1903 ff. and ff.; Pastor Sempere, 2010, pp. 120 and f.; Peñas Moyano, 2011, p. 244; Reyes López, 2012, pp. 431 and ff.; and Rodríguez Achutegui, 2008, p. 22, among others.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==