- Published on
Bowerman v The Association
The plaintiffs arranged a school skiing holiday through a travel agent affiliated with the defendant Association, ABTA. The travel firm became insolvent, and an alternative holiday was supplied, financed by ABTA. Nevertheless, ABTA declined to refund the travel insurance cost of £10 per individual. This was the plaintiffs' assertion for the amount of £10 each. The plaintiffs depended on the notice they observed in the travel agent's premises, titled 'Notice Describing ABTA's Scheme of Protection Against the Financial Failure of ABTA Members.' Paragraph 5 of the notification states the following:
Where holidays or other travel arrangements have not yet commenced at
the time of failure, ABTA arranges for you to be reimbursed the money
you have paid in respect of your holiday arrangements. In some instances,
ABTA may, however, be able to arrange for the existing arrangements to
proceed as planned or offer similar or alternative arrangements.
Held the plaintiffs’ claim succeeded. (I) Paragraph 5 of the notice was wide
enough to cover the insurance payments. (II) The ABTA notice as a whole
contained (per Waite LJ) a ‘bewildering miscellany…of information,
promise, disclaimer and reassurance…’. However, it ‘would be understood
by the ordinary member of the public as importing an intention to create
legal relations with customers of ABTA members’. Per Hobhouse LJ, the
notice was not ‘simply telling the public about the scheme which ABTA
has for its own members’ but ‘goes further than this and contains an offer
which a member of the public can take up and hold ABTA to should the
ABTA member with whom the member of the public is dealing fail
financially’. Per Hobhouse LJ, the arguments of ABTA echoed those of the
defendant in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1.4.1) and failed for similar
reasons. The consideration given by the customer to ABTA is entering into
a contract with the ABTA member, which is a collateral contract analogous
to the contract in Shanklin Pier Ltd v Detel Products Ltd
The plaintiffs arranged a school skiing holiday through a travel agent affiliated with the defendant Association, ABTA. The travel firm became insolvent, and an alternative holiday was supplied, financed by ABTA. Nevertheless, ABTA declined to refund the travel insurance cost of £10 per individual. This was the plaintiffs' assertion for the amount of £10 each. The plaintiffs depended on the notice they observed in the travel agent's premises, titled 'Notice Describing ABTA's Scheme of Protection Against the Financial Failure of ABTA Members.' Paragraph 5 of the notification states the following:
Where holidays or other travel arrangements have not yet commenced at
the time of failure, ABTA arranges for you to be reimbursed the money
you have paid in respect of your holiday arrangements. In some instances,
ABTA may, however, be able to arrange for the existing arrangements to
proceed as planned or offer similar or alternative arrangements.
Held the plaintiffs’ claim succeeded. (I) Paragraph 5 of the notice was wide
enough to cover the insurance payments. (II) The ABTA notice as a whole
contained (per Waite LJ) a ‘bewildering miscellany…of information,
promise, disclaimer and reassurance…’. However, it ‘would be understood
by the ordinary member of the public as importing an intention to create
legal relations with customers of ABTA members’. Per Hobhouse LJ, the
notice was not ‘simply telling the public about the scheme which ABTA
has for its own members’ but ‘goes further than this and contains an offer
which a member of the public can take up and hold ABTA to should the
ABTA member with whom the member of the public is dealing fail
financially’. Per Hobhouse LJ, the arguments of ABTA echoed those of the
defendant in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1.4.1) and failed for similar
reasons. The consideration given by the customer to ABTA is entering into
a contract with the ABTA member, which is a collateral contract analogous
to the contract in Shanklin Pier Ltd v Detel Products Ltd
0 Comments