Civil Case (N) 4843-03-20 Aviram Becker v. El Caspi Case – Supreme Court Israel Airlines Ltd. - part 29

There is no dispute that the defendant does not positively indicate at the time of purchasing the ticket the risk of canceling a flight due to the proximity to the beginning of a Shabbat or holiday, even though it may be a real risk, but the consumer is supposed to make the connection between the details of the information it provides him.  However, within the framework of the notification obligations required by the airline in the Aviation Services Law - whether with respect to its rights where a flight was canceled or took off late or in the framework of an offer for an alternative flight in exchange for the refund of the monetary consideration - the obligation to inform the passengers at the time of the reservation of the possible danger of canceling a flight that is determined in the vicinity of a Shabbat or holiday, and the consequences deriving therefrom according to the first addendum to the law, is not included.  As stated, even if this is a material detail in the transaction, I cannot determine that it is a matter of consumer deception, all the more so there is a designated law that details the duties of notification for the purpose of providing effective information and exercising the right to choose, and this is not one of them.  Just as the legislature could relate specifically to the issue of Shabbat and holidays, which is relevant only to Israel, when the law enshrines the main points of the conventions and comes only to add to them and not detract from the passenger's rights, and decides to add an issue relevant to Israel, so it can in the same breath determine that where an airline makes use of the exemption set out in section 6(e)(3), it will have to prove that it has met certain criteria as a condition for establishing that protection.  or to establish conditions similar to those specified by the legislature in a collective dispute (1), including that it did as much as it could not reach such a situation in the first place in a manner that gives the court the opportunity to infuse content into the section of the law as it does in relation to a collective dispute (e)(1) - what will be considered as if it did as much as it could.  The legislature was not required to do so at all.