Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 13658-10-23 Tzila Zilberberg v. Pegasus Tourism & Travel Ltd.

Introduction

1. The plaintiffs, 22 men and women, registered and participated in an organized trip of the defendant to Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina and Brazil from January 26, 2023 to February 28, 2023.
2. The trip included about 30 participants. See the words of the defendant's CEO, Mr. Itamar Nir ("the CEO"), at p.  78, paras.  22-23.  See also group photos submitted by the defendant which indicate that this was the size of the group.
3. Registration for the trip was done by each plaintiff (or each pair of plaintiffs) separately. There was no prior acquaintance between the members of the group (p.  17; paras.  36-39).
4. The plaintiffs signed up for the trip about six months before the departure date (paragraph 21 of the statement of claim).
5. This claim has three heads. The first is non-disclosure of information that must be disclosed to those who have signed up for an organized trip.  The second is a last-minute change made by the defendant in the plan of the trip.  and the third - "local" failures during the trip.
6. As a rule, subject to a number of exceptions, the factual set is not in dispute between the parties.

The change in the itinerary

7. I will first discuss the change that the defendant made in the itinerary. This issue has received a great deal of attention in the discussions before me.
8. For the first eleven days, the plaintiffs were supposed to travel to Peru. At the time of registration, Peru was at ease.
9. In December 2022, riots began in Peru. The riots in Peru were reported in the media.  The Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a travel warning regarding Peru on December 14, 2022 (p.  13 of the defendant's affidavits).
10. As the date of departure for the trip approached, the defendant began to receive notices from Condor, its supplier in Peru ("Condor"), regarding the riots and their implications for the trip.
11. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916On January 11, 2023, an introductory meeting and briefing was held between the members of the group and the tour guide, Mr. Nir Amran ("the guide" and "the encounter", respectively).

12-34-56-78 Chekhov v.  State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)

12. The meeting took place after the outbreak of the riots. The questionnaires answered by the prosecutors indicate that everyone knew about the riots that broke out in Peru. The defendant did not inform the group members at the meeting about changes in the plan.  The guide informed the group members at the meeting that as of that date the trip would take place as planned and that the defendant was following the events in Peru.
13. Four days before leaving, on January 22, 2023, the defendant sent an update letter to the plaintiffs: "... In the context of the political situation in Peru, we are in contact with our people in Peru and are constantly updated about the areas in which we will be traveling. During the trip, the guide will be in constant contact with the company's headquarters and also with our local representatives, and we will conduct an ongoing assessment of the situation and update the plan if necessary.  We keep your safety in mind and will not carry out activities that will consciously expose you, the travelers, to danger.  The guide will update you, the travelers, on any changes, if any."
14. On January 25, 2023, the day before the departure, the defendant informed the plaintiffs that she had prepared an alternative plan. The defendant wrote, inter alia, as follows: "... Over the past few weeks, we have been monitoring what is happening and the situation has changed from week to week, with some times there has been worsening and some times there has been relief and a sense of return to routine.  As of now, in recent days, we have witnessed a deterioration in the situation, so now a decision is required and we are implementing the contingency plan that we have prepared for this type of situation and are now working on implementing it in recent days so that you will feel during your stay in the Andean countries the feeling of travelers who experience the place in the most positive way, with an emphasis on maintaining your personal safety."
15. The main difference between the original and the alternative plan is the exchange of Peru with Ecuador. To be precise, it should be noted that the trip to Peru has not been completely canceled. The group flew to Lima and initially toured sites in Lima that were not dangerous.  Two days later, the group moved to Ecuador.  On the 11th day, the hike returned to the original route.
16. The plaintiffs are demanding substantial financial compensation due to the change. Tronitham focuses on the fact that they received the notice at the last minute.
17. Some of the plaintiffs further claim that the most important of the five countries they intended to visit was Peru, and that since the trip to Peru was significantly reduced, they missed the main point (testimony of Mr. Raveh at p. 21; paras. 10-15).  In the meantime, some of them claimed that the first part of the trip should have been canceled, Peru should have been skipped due to the riots, and that the trip should have started only at the next destination (testimony of Mr. Raveh at p.  21; paras.  27-35 and testimony of Ms. Hanan at p.  27; paras.  26-32).

Copied from NevoDid the defendant breach a duty of disclosure towards the plaintiffs?

18. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant breached the duty of disclosure that applies to it under the Tourism Services Regulations (Duty of Due Diligence), 5763-2003 (the "Regulations"). Regulation 3 stipulates the "information details" that a travel agency must provide to its customers.
19. The "information details" relevant to our case are "itineraries and visiting sites" (Regulation 3(1)(b)); "Means of transportation... Including domestic flights..." (Regulation 3(1)(c))); "information in the possession of the travel agency that the customer would probably have avoided purchasing the tour package" (Regulation 3(3)(c)); and "information provided by the Israeli authorities to travel agencies about dangerous destination countries..." (Regulation (3)(d)).
20. There is no doubt that the purpose of the regulations is to provide the customer with comprehensive information regarding the tour package that he is about to purchase.
21. At the same time, I am of the opinion that the regulations do not apply "one to one" to our case, and I will explain. The regulations apply to the obligation of disclosure before purchasing the tour package. Regulation 2(b) expressly states this: "Such information...  will be delivered in a manner that will provide a reasonable opportunity to review it before purchasing the tour package..." (Emphasis is not in the original - A.A.).
22. Regulation 6, which also establishes exceptions to the disclosure obligation in the case of a purchase within 72 hours before the trip and in the case of a purchase over the phone, indicates that the regulations apply to the stage before the purchase.
23. As stated above, there is no dispute that Peru conducted itself comfortably at the time of purchase, so that the defendant did not breach a duty of disclosure at the pre-purchase stage with respect to the riots in Peru. However, I found that the defendant breached the duty of disclosure in connection with domestic flights in South America. See a separate reference to this below.
24. Although according to their language, the regulations apply to the stage before the purchase, the spirit of the regulations and the disclosure obligations that arise from them, also apply to the stage between the purchase and the departure of the trip. At this time, however, regulations are not the be-all and end-all.
25. After the purchase, the defendant's bylaws also apply to the parties that the plaintiffs received upon them, upon the purchase of the tour package. Under the heading "Travel Warnings to Destinations" regulations, it is stated that "Travel warnings to destinations are updated on an ongoing basis by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It is the traveler's responsibility to check the travel warnings that are updated frequently.  Here is the link to the Foreign Ministry website on this subject." The regulations on the defendant's website allow a link to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website at the click of a button.  I have already mentioned above that all the plaintiffs knew about the riots in Peru and all of them are intelligent people who could have been updated on the Foreign Ministry's website and knew about the riots in Peru (as indicated by their answers to the questionnaire).
26. The regulations stipulate that "the trip and the itinerary as advertised obligates Pegasus but... Pegasus is not responsible for weather phenomena... or any other circumstances (such as power outages and local riots) that are beyond Pegasus' control that may cause any change or cancellation in the route or services booked" (emphasis mine).
27. The plaintiffs are full of arguments like a grenade against this simple, basic and logical stipulation. It is clear to everyone that the riots in Peru meant that the original plan could not be maintained.
28. The defendant, through Condor, worked on an alternative plan - Ecuador instead of Peru. This course of action is consistent with the provision of the Regulations, which is not discriminatory.
29. It should be noted that the distinction between the pre-registration stage, to which the Regulations apply, and the subsequent stage, to which the Regulations apply, is not only technical, but also substantive.
30. Before registering, the defendant is obligated to have a broad duty of disclosure under the regulations in order for customers to make an informed decision whether to sign up for a trip.
31. After registration, the parties are already "partners" in the full sense of the word. The plaintiffs are entitled to the defendant taking the trouble to prepare a high-quality and enjoyable trip for them and also to update them regarding changes in the plan. On the other hand, the defendant is entitled to carry out the trip in the best possible way and is also entitled to derive economic profit from it.
32. In paragraph 22 of their summaries, the plaintiffs complain that the defendant acted out of a financial motive. There is nothing wrong with that. The defendant is an economic company and is entitled to take into account economic considerations.
33. It should be emphasized that the riots broke out in December, about four and a half months after the plaintiffs signed up for the trip. At this stage, the defendant was already invested in the trip in terms of work, organization and money, and she should not be required to cancel the trip or part of it if it is able to propose a reasonable change in the route, as it actually did.
34. Even if we accept the claim of some of the plaintiffs that Peru is the "crowning glory" of South America, the defendant pointed to similar contours between Ecuador and Peru, namely: the Andes Mountains, the Inca culture, and the Amazon jungle (paragraph 54 of the defendant's statement of defense, which is not contradicted). Therefore, the alternative proposed by the defendant is reasonable.
35. In the section of the regulations, quoted above, the "change" precedes the "cancellation". This is how the defendant acted, responsibly for the safety of the plaintiffs and fairly. The defendant changed the trip, because there was no need to cancel it completely.
36. The plaintiffs complain that at the meeting the plaintiffs were not informed of the change. The correspondence between the defendant and Condor indicates that the situation was dynamic. See an email that Condor sent to the defendant on January 23, 2023, according to which "everything is changing every day."

0

37. Thus, for example, from Condor's message to the defendant dated January 19, 2023, it appears that the Machu Picchu website was still operating on that day (p. 40 of the defendant's affidavits), from Condor's letter written after the trip on June 6, 2023, it appears that the site was closed on January 21, 2023 (five days before the trip), as well as a press clip submitted by the plaintiffs in the framework of Appendix 3 to their affidavits.
38. The meeting took place about two weeks before leaving for the trip. At that point, it was still not possible to present a clear plan.
39. With all due respect, the plaintiffs' expectation that the defendant will conduct "situation assessment" hearings with them, every few days, is neither correct nor practical. The plaintiffs and the other members of the group could not be expected to make a decision regarding the changes required for the trip. The plaintiffs are not professionals in the field of tourism and they did not know which changes could be made and which were not feasible.
40. Moreover, it can be assumed that if the defendant had done so, panic would have been sown among the members of the group, the group would have disbanded and the trip would have been canceled. I have already noted above that at the stage before going on the trip, the members of the group were not a cohesive group, but rather people who were exposed to the defendant's publications and registered for the trip separately. Therefore, it stands to reason that opening the issue for discussion at or after the meeting would have led to the cancellation of the trip.
41. The defendant managed the crisis as the "responsible adult" and presented the plaintiffs, on the eve of the trip, with a suitable alternative for the days when it was not possible to travel in Peru.
42. The announcement of the change was given at the last minute. At first glance, this is puzzling. However, when we delve deeper into the facts, it appears that the defendant acted reasonably.  The defendant worked almost until the last minute to create a suitable alternative and then published it to the members of the class.
43. The plaintiffs complain about the phrase "contingency plan" mentioned in the defendant's notice of January 25, 2023. The plaintiffs load this expression with a prior malicious intention on the part of the defendant that you did not take to Peru. This should not be accepted.  The riots in Peru broke out on December 14, 2022.  The plaintiffs had signed up for the trip a few months earlier.  It is clear that at the time of registration and even long afterwards, the defendant intended and wanted to take the plaintiffs to Peru.
44. The correct interpretation, in my opinion, of the term "contingency plan" in the context at hand is that from the outbreak of the riots, the defendant "broke its head" as to whether and how to change the trip and adapt it to the situation that was created. The exact plan for moving to Ecuador was created shortly before the change was announced.
45. The judgments on which the plaintiffs rely are substantially different from the case at hand. The plaintiffs referred to judgments in which the breach of the duty of disclosure was discussed, and even to a judgment dealing with the failure to report a travel warning. The common denominator in the aforementioned rulings is the breach of the duty of disclosure prior to registration.  No documents were presented relating to a case in which the duty of disclosure was not violated at the time of registration and the change in the security situation at the destination of the trip occurred close to the date of departure. 
46. In Small Claim (Hadera) 64484-11-17 Hayoun v. T. Discovery World Trip In its tax appeal (3/6/18), which the plaintiffs rely on, the court ruled that "information that the defendant should have provided to the plaintiffs prior to purchasing the trip, in accordance with the provisions of the regulations, was actually given to them only two days before the trip..." (Paragraph 34 of the judgment).  As mentioned above, the riots in Peru broke out long after the plaintiffs purchased the trip.
47. Similarly, a small claim (Petah Tikva) 2273-07-22 Allen v. Ista Israel in Tax Appeal (2/10/22) deals with a travel warning to Turkey dated 7/4/22 that was not notified to the plaintiff when she signed up for the trip on 12/5/22. As stated above, the travel warning in our case was published many months after the registration for the trip.  Therefore, this judgment also does not support the plaintiffs' arguments.
48. Also Small Claim (Tel Aviv) 48867-02-14 Gottlieb v. Pegasus Tourism and Travel inTax Appeal (12/8/16) dealt with the non-disclosure of facts that were known to the defendant prior to the registration of the trip.
49. Small Claim (Bat Yam) 68537-01-23 Eini et al. Pegasus Tourism and Travel inTax Appeal (17/8/23) deals with the obligation to be vaccinated before entering the United States during the Corona period.  The defendant there (who is also the defendant in question) informed the plaintiffs there of the obligation to be vaccinated in the interim period between registration for the trip and departure.  Ms. Eini arrived at Ben Gurion Airport without meeting the vaccination requirements, so the Eini were forced to stay in Israel.
50. It is not clear from the judgment whether the information was available to the defendant at the time of registering for the trip. In any event, the Magistrate's Court was of the opinion that the defendant did indeed send the instructions to the plaintiffs, but did not act "actively to bring to the attention of the plaintiffs the material information in the document that was sent, or at least to check whether the information was received and understood by the plaintiffs" (paragraph 20 of the judgment). The Magistrate's Court accepted the claim in full and awarded the plaintiffs compensation in the amount of ILS 36,400 plus legal expenses.
51. Counsel for the plaintiffs in this case did not bother to note that the defendant's appeal (ibid.) against the judgment in the Eini case was accepted: Small Claims Appeal Authority (Tel Aviv District) 58801-08-23 Pegasus Travel and Tourism inTax Appeal v. Eini (19/12/23). The Magistrate's Court's judgment was annulled by consensus and a total sum of ILS 15,000 was awarded instead.
52. The Supreme Court's judgment in Other Municipal Applications 430/79 Benishti v. Rina Sasson IsrSC 35(2), 400 (1981) does not support the plaintiffs' position. The Benishti case dealt with travelers who were "taken" against their will on a trip they did not want, and they only discovered this when they arrived at the destination of the trip.  In this case, the defendant informed the plaintiffs on the eve of the trip of the changes she had made.  Any of the plaintiffs for whom the change did not suit him could have stayed in Israel.  Again, the changes in question did not stem from a mistake or negligence on the part of the defendant, but rather from security constraints and a tendency to maintain the safety of the plaintiffs.

Domestic flights in South America

53. I am of the opinion that in this context the defendant did not fulfill the duty of disclosure that applies to it under the Regulations, and I will explain.
54. As stated above, the Regulations require the defendant to disclose the domestic flights. In the trip plan (Appendix 1 to the defendants' affidavit), the defendant wrote: "The domestic flight schedule will be given to anyone who requests it close to the date of departure for the trip after we have up-to-date and final information... In South America, the flight schedule changes frequently, and sometimes even without prior notice, unfortunately."
55. Not only was the domestic flight schedule not provided in advance to the plaintiffs, but the CEO testified about the defendant's policy of refraining from providing the plaintiffs with the schedule, and in his words: "We do not forward the list of domestic flights to any passenger on any trip" (p. 89; Sh. 13).  The CEO's explanations that he is afraid of grumpy passengers who will "make a fuss" of moving one way or another for two hours are contrary to the regulations and cannot be accepted, especially since in this case several flights were scheduled right in the middle of the night and the defendant should have informed the plaintiffs about this in advance.  As stated, at this point, the defendant did not comply with the regulations.
56. The evidence indicates that the defendant booked flights for the plaintiffs at night, impairing their alertness and functioning the next day. Appendix 9 to the plaintiffs' affidavits indicates that a wake-up call was set for midnight between February 8 and 9, 2023, in order to depart for the airport for a domestic flight. A domestic flight was also scheduled for the night between February 14 and 15, as was the night between the 24th and 25th of the month.  To be precise: these are not the first days of the trip (Ecuador instead of Peru) but flights that were scheduled in advance for the second part of the trip.
57. In this context, the defendant's failure is twofold. Both the failure to disclose in advance the domestic flights, in violation of the regulations, and the provision of unpleasant and uncomfortable night flights, without any justification for this.
58. I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for this. Three overnight flights is no small feat, and they could have harmed the enjoyment of the trip. I set the compensation at ILS 2,500 for each plaintiff.

The "local" failures of the trip

59. The plaintiffs noted the failures that will be detailed below. I will bring them one by one and next to each failure I will bring the answer that the defendant gave to that failure and I will discuss the argument and the answer.
60. The level of guidance in Ecuador was low - indeed, it turned out in the discussion that the guide had visited Ecuador only once before the trip. In contrast, the guide has guided many trips to Peru in the past (p. 52; paras.  12-15 and p.  55, paras.  19-29).  Indeed, this was the case, but this was due to the compulsion not to travel in Peru, for which the defendant is not responsible.  The claim is unjustified. 
61. The Zodiac cruise did not take place - in the itinerary, the plaintiffs were promised a cruise in Zodiac boats (small rubber boats) and catamarans (large boats). In practice, the cruise was in a catamaran only. The guide and the CEO explained that the Zodiac was more dangerous than the catamaran, that the preparation for the Zodiac cruise was more protracted and more complex, and that the plaintiffs were given a longer cruise in the catamaran than the one planned in the Zodiac (see reference to the subject of sailing at pp.  57-58 and pp.  88-89 of the transcript).  Sailing in a zodiac is a different experience than a catamaran cruise.  There was no place to promise a cruise in Zodiac and not to have it.  In this context, I set the compensation at the sum of ILS 500 for each plaintiff. 
62. An unair-conditioned bus in Brazil - the plaintiffs' argument in this context was not contradicted (p. 32; paras.  1-4).  However, this is one day in which the plaintiffs traveled to Petropolis.  The plaintiffs admit in their affidavits that in the end the bus was replaced by two vans (see the section "Buses" in the plaintiffs' affidavits).  Bus air conditioner malfunctions can happen.  I do not believe that the defendant is responsible for this, especially since a solution was given to the problem when the bus was replaced by air-conditioned vans.  The claim is unjustified. 
63. A damp hotel in Salvador - the plaintiffs' claim that they were housed in a hotel whose rooms were damp was not contradicted (p. 90; paras. 37-38).  We are talking about 2 nights (p.  65; s.  15).  The guide explained that the defendant had housed her guests in this hotel before the Corona but could not say whether she had checked the condition of the hotel with the resumption of trips after the Corona pandemic.  The defendant should have checked the condition of the hotel before the trip and housed the plaintiffs in a proper and appropriate hotel.  Since it did not do so, it must compensate the plaintiffs.  In Civil Appeal 8213/13 Margalit D.N.L.  inTax Appeal v.  Zemliak (16/1/14) it was held that the travel agency could have known "about the poor maintenance condition of the hotel before marketing the package" (paragraph 6 of the decision).  The same is true in our case.  I set the compensation at the sum of ILS 2,000 for each plaintiff.
64. Delay in leaving for the Seven Lakes - The plaintiffs claim that on the day intended to visit the Seven Lakes, the departure was delayed, and thus the plaintiffs missed the daylight hours and arrived at the lakes towards dark. From the counselor's explanations, which were not contradicted, it appears that the main delay that day, of several hours, was due to a power outage at the border crossing between Chile and Argentina, a malfunction for which the defendant is not responsible (see reference to this issue at pp. 23-24 and 59-60 of the transcript).  The claim is unjustified. 
65. Delay in arriving at the carnival in Brazil - The plaintiffs' claim that they arrived at the carnival late and that some of them could not find a place to sit was found to be correct. The guide claimed that "the bus was late" and in fact admitted to being late (pp. 62-63 of the transcript).  It was not proven that the defendant was responsible for the delay of the bus.  Such a delay can be caused by traffic jams, etc.  It has not been proven that the defendant could have anticipated the delay or prevented it, and therefore the defendant is not responsible for it.  The claim is unjustified. 

Closing Notes

66. The substitution of Ecuador for Peru was legal, reasonable, correct and reasonable. In general, it can be said that the trip was enjoyable and successful. Thus, for example, plaintiffs 11-12 H.H.  Leventhal thanked the guide in the WhatsApp group upon their return to Israel for "the attitude, pleasantness of manners and excellent guidance that made the trip successful" (my emphasis - A.A.).
67. The plaintiffs succeeded in showing that the defendant breached the duty of disclosure before the trip with respect to domestic flights and also proved failures in the trip regarding the cruise and the hotel in Salvador. Therefore, the defendant must compensate the plaintiffs, as detailed above. Compare: Small Claim (Tel Aviv) 16989-09-22 Weber v.  Pegasus Tourism and Travel in Tax Appeal (20/2/23).

Conclusion

68. The defendant will pay the plaintiffs the sum of ILS 110,000 (ILS 5,000 for each of the 22 plaintiffs).
69. The defendant will pay the plaintiffs the court fees resulting from a total of ILS 110,000 and attorney's fees in the sum of ILS 19,470.
70. The amounts will be paid within 30 days, otherwise arrears will be incurred from today until the actual payment.

Given today, January 28, 2026, in the absence of the parties.