The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the carrier claiming for damages caused by an accident suffered when she was disembarking from the vessel that carried her to the port of Montevideo, Uruguay. The defendant stated that the claim was time-barred because more than one year had elapsed, according to art 345 of the Argentine Navigation Act N° 20.094, which differs from the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea 1974 (Athens Convention 1974) and the 1990 Protocol, which provides for a time-bar of two years.

The plaintiff answered that according to art 50 of the Consumer's Act N° 24.240, the time bar was three years and therefore the claim was not time-barred, and that this article also states that the term most favourable to the consumer should apply.

Held: The Court considered that the 'legal link' between the carrier as the supplier of the service and the passenger as the user of the service is a typical consumer relationship, according to art 3º of law 24.240, amended by Act 26.361, considering that this law has the goal of protecting the consumer as any physical or legal person who acquires or uses goods or services (whether or not for free) as final consumer in its personal benefit or for the benefit of his or her relatives. Therefore, in order to balance the relation between two rules in conflict - the Navigation Act N° 20.094 and the Consumer´s Act N° 24.240 - it should be considered that the third para of art 3 of the Consumer's Act states the consumer´s relations should be ruled by the Consumer's Act even if the provider of the service, considering its activity, might be governed by another specific rule. Therefore, the system established by the Navigation Act should give way to the consumer law that prevails over any other rule that might apply to the same matters that the consumer law covers. Morever, the Court stated that the Consumer's Act has constitutional status according to what is provided by art 42 of the 1994 Argentine Constitution that incorporates consumer protection as a fundamental right which is mandatory according to art 65.

Therefore, as the three-year term stated under the Consumer's Act had not elapsed when the lawsuit was filed, the time-bar defence was rejected.