Based on information provided by the agency, Smadar and Shaul Friedman purchased a ski pass and appropriate insurance coverage. Upon their arrival, the couple found their reserved hotel empty of guests, and the ski lifts shut down. They were then informed by a local agent that no skiing was available. The two were directed instead to a beachside hotel. The couple told the court they attempted to contact an Eshet representative, who took some time to get back to them. When they learned that a return flight home would take some days and cost $500 per person, they opted to remain in Turkey. They packed up their winter clothes, which had been specially bought for the holiday, and headed for the beach. Back at home, however, when the couple demanded a refund of the NIS 7,600 they had paid for the package tour, the travel agency denied all responsibility. So they sued for the cost of the ski vacation, the expense of the new, warm-weather clothing they had bought, loss of income, emotional distress and legal expenses, demanding NIS 17,800. Eshet argued that it could not be held responsible for weather overseas, and that it had fulfilled its professional duty in good faith. The couple, the tourism agency argued, had enjoyed a variety of services, pampering and benefits, and that it was the responsibility of the couple to inquire whether there had been sufficient snowfall before arranging for a ski vacation. Eshet serves only as a go-between between vacationers and service providers, the company argued. But Judge Oded Maor begged to differ on the responsibility issue. "When Eshet sold a skiing vacation package, it was its responsibility to check to make sure that the conditions at the site were suitable for skiing, and that it was selling the chosen vacation it had offered," the judge ruled. Maor ordered the travel agency to pay a total of NIS 9,000, after rejecting the couple's claim for lost income.

 www.haaretz.com