On 22 April 2004, the Savelovsky District Court of the City of Moscow heard the case of I.Yu. Azizova v. LLC “Aviaexpress-Service” concerning the termination of a contract and payment of compensation for losses incurred.

On 22 April 2004, the Savelovsky District Court of the City of Moscow heard the case of I.Yu. Azizova v. LLC “Aviaexpress-Service” concerning the termination of a contract and payment of compensation for losses incurred. This case is of interest both from the legal point of view and that of everyday experience.

   On 1 August 2003 the Claimant, Azizova, concluded a contract with LLC “Aviaexpress-Service” for the purchase of a tour. In accordance with the terms of the contract, the tourist agency undertook to supply the client with all the documentation confirming her rights to the tour (the right to a complex of tourist services), comprising a holiday in Turkey from 3 to 15 August 2003.Aziziova discharged her obligations by full payment for the tour.

   On the same day, 1 August 2003, the Claimant voluntarily subjected herself to cosmetic surgery. Consequently, she was unable to travel to Turkey, and filed a claim against the tourist agency for the sum paid earlier for the tour, basing her demands on the assumption that each party to a contract has the right to initiate its termination in the case of a substantial change in circumstances.

   The attorneys of the law firm “YUST”, who represented the tourist agency in court, argued that the agency was not responsible for the failed tour, as the Claimant, having purchased the tour and submitted herself to surgery on the same day, could not have been unaware of the negative   consequences of the surgery that rendered her holiday impossible.

   The materials of the case, including a letter from the senior surgeon of the clinic, confirm that the operation was planned in advance i.e. unconnected with any deterioration in the patient’s health.

   On the basis of the above, the court concluded that the Claimant exceeded that degree of reason and foresight that was required of her within the framework of civil practice and that in this case there was no complex of substantial circumstances that would justify termination of the contract and the advancement of financial demands.

   Consequently, the court refused to satisfy the claim.