138 TOURISM LAW IN EUROPE intermediary disclaimer whereby possible claims are addressed to the performance debtor, in accordance with the general rule regarding the liability of intermediaries towards third parties. In its decision, the Eastern Regional Court initially concluded that there is no doubt that the underlying agreement between the subsequently bankrupt airline and GoLeif.dk (the internal relationship) entailed that GoLeif.dk only acted as a retailer between the airline, as the seller, and the consumer, as the buyer. However, the appellant (the consumer) claimed that he had the impression that the contract was entered into with GoLeif.dk via the platform website, thereby contending that GoLeif.dk — along with the airline — must be regarded as the consumer’s direct contracting party (the external relationship). The consumer stressed that his sole contact had been with GoLeif.dk, which also received the payment, and to whom he submitted electronically a request for the tickets. One of the key premises in the judgment is that although it seems clear that retailers (travel agents) generally do not act in their own name when selling airline tickets, acting only as an intermediary for the airline carriers, this relationship cannot be regarded as widely known by the consumers. Having made a general assessment of the website of GoLeif.dk, the Eastern Regional Court found that the consumer could assume they were dealing directly with GoLeif.dk. This was affirmed, despite the fact that the website makes it possible to choose between flights from multiple airlines. Based on this premise, we can conclude that the level of knowledge expected of a consumer is different and lower compared with what is expected of a contracting party acting as a professional. In this regard, the consumer bears no professional risk. The court emphasised the general impression of the website and the fact that the consumer was under the impression that he contracted directly with GoLeif.dk, and thus it had to be regarded as the consumer’s contracting party. A second interconnected key premise is that the GoLeif.dk website did not make it sufficiently clear that customers were not trading with GoLeif.dk, but instead with the airline delivering the flight. The intermediary status was signalled via the booking flow on the website, as well as in the terms and conditions below the heading “responsibility for the implementation of the journey”, which stated that GoLeif.dk acted as an “intermediary” and that GoLeif.dk did not “sell” trips in their own name. However, the court found that it could not be assumed that a general consumer could determine his or hers legal position in relation to GoLeif.dk solely on the basis of this information. Moreover, GoLeif.dk was described in the travel conditions as a “technical organiser” without this term being described in detail. Furthermore, both the booking flow on the website
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==