This distinction is expressed in detail in Regulation 2(c) of the Consumer Protection Regulations (Cancellation of a Transaction), 5771-2010, which states that when the transaction was made on the dealer's website, he is obligated to allow the consumer to cancel the transaction through the website as well, and to provide confirmation of receipt of the cancellation notice in one of three ways: an e-mail message, a text message (SMS), or an oral message. On the other hand, in transactions that were not entered into on the dealer's website, there is no obligation to allow cancellation through the website, and the cancellation can be done in any of the ways listed in section 14D of the law.
- In our case, the transaction that is the subject of the lawsuit concerns a course that was supposed to take place at the college, in person, due to the Corona virus, the way the course was run was changed and it became an online format, the defendant, according to his claim that was not concealed, participated in at least one lesson, and immediately afterwards, requested to cancel the engagement, inter alia due to the fact that online learning is inconvenient and unacceptable to him. He allegedly tried to contact the recipient of the message and give a cancellation notice by phone.
- In an additional hearing in Civil 7187/12 Zemach v. El Al Israel Airlines in a Tax Appeal (published in Nevo, August 17, 2014) (hereinafter: the "Zemach case"), it was held that in transactions in the field of aviation and tourism, increased consumer protection is required due to the inherent power and information disparities between the parties. This is all the more true when it comes to senior citizens.
- The law grants a senior citizen an extended cancellation period of 4 months, without any requirement for a minimum time frame before the date of service. In our case, the cancellation was made about two months from the date the transaction was made, and by the means permitted by law.
- It is important to emphasize that while Amendment No. 7 5758-1998 establishes a time limit of seven working days for canceling transactions in the field of hospitality, travel, vacation or recreation services, this restriction does not apply to senior citizens in a remote sale transaction. The legislature consciously chose to grant senior citizens an extended right of cancellation of 4 months, without limiting the date of cancellation in relation to the date of the service. In doing so, the legislature expressed the special protection given to this population, while recognizing the need to give them more time to consider the transaction and decide to cancel it
Any other cancellation policy of the recipient of the notice, which contradicts the provisions of the Consumer Protection Law, cannot stand, because Section 36(a) of the Consumer Protection Law explicitly establishes the principle of non-stipulation on the provisions of the Law, and a company's internal policy cannot prevail over this cogent provision.
- In accordance with the principles set out in the Zemach case cited above, the right to cancel a remote sale transaction is intended to deal with the inherent power and information gaps between the dealer and the consumer, the Supreme Court emphasized that when it comes to senior citizens, increased consumer protection is required in view of their special vulnerability to such transactions.
- The essence of consumer protection in this context is to enable the consumer, and in particular a senior citizen, to reconsider the transaction and cancel it within the period prescribed by law, without the need to prove a defect in the engagement or a special justification for cancellation. This purpose is reflected in the fact that the legislature did not limit the right of cancellation to certain reasons, and did not require the existence of a causal connection between the cause of revocation and the right itself.
From the general to the individual
- From the evidence presented to me, it appears that the defendant contracted with the college on December 1, 2019, for the purpose of registering for the course, when the engagement documents were sent to him on January 21, 2020. The defendant did not deny that the engagement was made in person, and it was not claimed that there was a telephone conversation in the framework of which the engagement was made.
- On March 15, 2020, with the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the transition to online teaching, the defendant claimed that he had asked to cancel his participation in the course, but according to him, his requests to the college were not answered. In practice, apart from the notice that was attached, according to which he asked to be contacted and the answer the next day when he was asked, "How can I help?", I was not presented with the fact that the defendant requested to cancel his participation in the course in writing or orally, and did not give a clear cancellation notice.
- The first contact, which is indisputably made in practice, was in a telephone conversation on July 1, 2020, more than six months after the date of the engagement.
As stated above, in accordance with Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Law, the right to cancel is valid for 14 days from the date of the engagement, and in certain cases - including a call by a senior citizen or a person with a disability following a telephone conversation - the period is extended to four months (Section 14C(c) of the Law).