Case no. 2
In September 2012, after spending some time in Turkey, Mr. Karl Gunner, an Austrian tourist, bought a ticket for the ferry boat to travel from Marmaris (Turkey) to Rhodos (Greece) to Patras (Greece) and finally, to Ancona, in Italy. He bought the ticket in Marmaris. The ferry boat is operated by a Greek - Turkish company for regular rides between Marmaris and Rhodos.
At the ticket desk in Turkey, there was a notice that each ticket purchased is subject to the General Terms and Conditions available in different languages at the nearby panel, providing for the applicability of the Turkish law.
When Mr. Gunner wished to get on board, he was told that the ferry is already full and that he may take one tomorrow. This caused him expenses because he had to pay for an extra room in for the night in Marmaris, as well as for the room in Italy which he had booked in advance. The company refused to reimburse him for the additional expenses in Turkey and Italy and also the damages caused by all the inconveniences of the delay.
Mr. Gunner lodged a claim before the Austrian court.
Tasks for the court
1. Are the provisions of Rome I Regulation applicable ratione materiae, temporis, loci in this case? Identify the relevant provisions.
2. Which law is applicable in this case?
a. Is the choice of law in the present case in accordance with the provisions of Rome I Regulation? Indicate what valid choice of law could have been made based on the provisions of Rome I Regulation.
b. Imagine that no choice of law was made in the present case. Identify the applicable law in the absence of a choice of law made by the parties.
Case no. 3
On August 2014, Ms. Agneza Babic works as a hotel receptionist in Split, Croatia. On the email address of the hotel where she works, Ms. Babic discovers an e-mail message from the company KYG Watches Ltd, offering for sell “original high-quality brand name jewelry and watches at discount prices”.
The receptionist replied to the e-mail ordering one of the watches that were described in the offer as a gold watch produced by one of the renowned Swiss watch producers and paid upon the receipt of the watch. In a week, however, the watch became deteriorating as the thin “gold” layer began to peel. Disappointed as she was, Ms. Babic sent to the KYG Watches Ltd company an email message cancelling the contract and asking for the refund of the price.
The company replied that under the Turkish law, the buyer has no right to cancel the contract. In this reply, KYG Watches Ltd indicated to Ms. Babic that in the initial electronic message on the e-mail address of the hotel, offering the watches, a small-letter provision was inserted, stating that the seller’s General Conditions of Sale, accessible through the link to its webpage, are part of the contract. When the buyer placed the order, the clause was accepted and thus the Turkish law is applicable on the effects of the sell contract.
Ms. Agneza Babic brought an action before Split First Instance Court asking for the refund of the price.
Tasks for the court
1. Are the provisions of Rome I Regulation applicable ratione materiae, temporis, loci in this case? Identify the relevant provisions.
2. Which law is applicable in this case?
a. Is the choice of law in the present case in accordance with the provisions of Rome I Regulation? Indicate what valid choice of law could have been made based on the provisions of Rome I Regulation.
b. Imagine that no choice of law was made in the present case. Identify the applicable law in the absence of a choice of law made by the parties.
1