Business Law - The Liability of the Hotel for the Items Lost - Assignment Example

? REPORT ON LAW FOR BUSINESS Is the hotel liable for the items lost? Explain fully. Innkeeper’s Limited Liability law under the British jurisdiction is applicable in the given situation. Innkeepers are the party who can exercise the rights given under the Innkeepers Act 1878.As per Sec 1(3) HPA 1956, the innkeeper owns its duties towards any guests looking for accommodation. The innkeeper is under obligation to offer accommodation to the guest at the inn without any prior contract if there are rooms available. An innkeeper who is the owner of may be more than one inn cannot direct a guest to another inn after refusing him accommodation from the present inn. The guests should be in fit and able to make payments as per Section 1(3) HPA 1956. As per the British Law the innkeeper will be in the liability for safeguarding the interest of the guests in reason for the award received from the guests. The innkeepers are also bound to supply accommodation to the guests along with their luggage. The hotels have the right to allocate the rooms to their guest. The hotel authority is responsible for the safety of the guests during their stay in the hotel. The hotel authorities are in charge of taking reasonable care for the safety of their guests during their stay in the hotel. As per the British law the innkeeper’s liability for the safety of their guests is strict. The issue of liability of the hotel authority arises only if there is negligence on the part of the innkeeper regarding the belongings of the customer. In case of non delegable duty greater standard of care is required by the person or authority in responsibility but only in respect of those things as stated by them and not those which has been prohibited or not stated by the innkeeper (Brotherton, 2000, pp.145). Again based on exemption clause, a contract between two parties might include some limitations or exemption as per requirement. A party might be exempted from some liabilities based on some clauses (Jones,2011, p.168). Based on the rules stated above, Freda could not blame the hotel authority for the misplacement of her belongings. The hotel authority clearly stated “The Gullies Hotel and its Management would not be held liable for the safety of any valuable left in the guest's room and the Hotel has safe deposit boxes at the reception.” This is an exemption clause which limits the liability of the innkeeper in this case. Freda’s charge would have relevant if she had kept her belongings under the safe deposit box whose responsibility was borne by the hotel authority. 2. Discuss the doctrine of precedent. Give specific case examples where the court has applied this legal principle. Doctrine of Precedent or Stare Decisis is a part of common law. It is a process by which courts use verdicts made in earlier cases to assist the verdict of the case presently in consideration. The precedent is arrived by combining the verdict given in the previous court cases under similar facts. There have been many cases which came into the court room but their decisions could not be given just because there were no fixed laws prescribed. Judges often delivered verdicts in the courts based on an impulse or sentiment. To overcome such shortcomings the doctrine of precedent was framed where the law stated on a case was followed over time as judges abided by the decisions of previous cases. The judges would meet regularly and evaluate the decisions they made earlier. They would choose the most suitable verdict and apply those if any similar condition came up. The Doctrine of Precedent is subject to certain general rules. As per the binding precedent rule, lower courts are bound to follow verdicts made in superior courts. As per persuasive precedent, superior courts have an option to use the help or refer cases of lower courts in decision making. Most courts are by law bound to follow their own decisions made earlier. The verdict given by the judge has two parts. Ratio decidendi states the principle or cause for deciding the case in a particular way. It forms the binding part of a precedent whereas obiter dicta means other remarks. It is not binding on other courts. Example can be cited on basis of Obiter Dicta. The case R v Howe Bannister(1987) 2 WLR 568 House of Lords referred to the application of the doctrine of precedent. The case was about two murders and conspiracy for murder. Charges were brought against Howe and Bailey aged 19 and against Bannister aged 20. The first murder was of a male victim named Elgar. Elgar was subjected to a continuous physical torture made by the offenders. Howe and Bannister were involved into continuous kicking. They were threatened then that if they did not the follow as Murray order then Murray would punish them severely. After this Bailey killed Elgar. This was followed by a second killing which took place after that night of a 19 year old boy. The order was given by Murray to Howe and Bannister and they did so. The third charge was related to a related incident but the offenders managed to escape. It was held that, “the defence of duress is not available for murder whether it be a principal in the first or second degree.” The rule stated in the  DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch case was overruled . With virtue of Obiter Dicta it was declared that “the defense should not be available to one to one who attempts murder”. The doctrine of precedent was applied and it was concluded that attempted assassination required evidence for an intention of killing. On the other hand in murder the act would be sufficient enough to proof that there was intention of serious injury (R v Howe & Bannister, n.d.) In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball (1893) 1 QB 256 the doctrine of precedence was applied. The case was regarding a company’s advertisement regarding a product named “smoke ball” which can be used in defence of catching influenza. In the advertisement the company claimed that in case of any failure of product service the company would pay compensation to that person. The product did not have an effect over Mrs. Carlill. So she claimed her rewards from the company. When the company refused to pay her she sued the same on the ground of breach of contract. Lindley LJ, the judge stated that there prevailed a “string of authorities” which confirmed that the company made offer in the technical sense. Two issues came up from the case whose decision needed to get extended on the basis of the previous law enforced in the case of Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877) 2 App Cas 666. This assures that the judge made decision following the Doctrine of Precedence of Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877) 2 App Cas 666 (Luyulei Legal English Net ,2006-2011). 3. A. Is there an agreement between Electronics Ltd and Andy? Explain fully. In a contractual agreement a binding contract is created when one party makes an offer and the same is accepted by the other. It can be denoted as Agreement= Proposal (offer) + Acceptance of the proposal (or offer) In any contractual agreement distinction should be made in between offer and acceptance that from of offer and an invitation treat. An offer will lead to a binding contract or acceptance. On the other hand the invitation to treat in a contractual agreement cannot be accepted since it is merely an invitation for offers. In application of the agreement law distinction should also be made between bilateral and unilateral contracts. An offer may be terminated on the grounds of death of the offeror or offeree, lapse of time, revocation and counter offer (Jones, 2011, pp. 105-113) Exclusion principle limits the liability of one or the other parties involved in an agreement. An exclusion clause can exempt a person from liability of damage or any kind of loss and also during a sale or advertisement, there might be an exemption clause on the basis of which an offer is made or accepted. This has already been mentioned in the first answer. The case of Esso Petroleum v Harmper’s Garage (1968) can be mentioned in this regard. In a certain agreement Harper decided to buy all the petrol from Esso for 4.5 years in return of a discount offer. In the second agreement a loan of 7000 pound was undertaken from Esso to buy a garage and in this case a 21 years period was mentioned for reimbursement of the loan. While the first agreement was considered reasonable the second was not because the loan was in exchange of a mortgage (garage) therefore the agreement to buy petrol was not reasonable. In another case of Goldsoll v Goldman (1915) the seller had sold his jewelry business to the claimant and though the business was in London, the business was carried out with the help of emails in the UK. However the seller decided not to participate in the sale of real or imitation jewelry in any region of UK, France, Russia, USA or any region around Berlin or Vienna (within 25 miles). This clause of exemption of limitation involved too wide a geographical region to implement (Jones, 2011, p. 188). In the given scenario, Electronic Ltd. made an offer by advertising about big discount and limited stock. On the other hand the offer was accepted by Andy over phone since he said “I accept your offer” after enquiring about the price list. An offer was made and the same was accepted on those terms. So it can be said that an agreement was made between Electronic Ltd. and Andy. On the basis of exclusion or exemption clause, the agreement is valid since the advertisement said that stock was limited. So just because the stock was exhausted, it does not mean that the agreement is not valid. b. Is there an agreement between Electronics Ltd and Brad? Explain fully. There was no agreement between Brad and Electronic Ltd. Electronics Ltd. offered for ?300 but Brad agreed for ?250 Brad. This assures that the offer got terminated by virtue of counter offer made. c. Is there an agreement between Electronics Ltd and Carl? Explain fully. There is an agreement between Electronics ltd and Carl. Electronics Ltd. made an offer by proposing sale of phones at a discount. In the shop when the shopkeeper made an offer of ?300 for the Nokia phone Carl immediately accepted the offer as proposed. The acceptance was certain. So there is an agreement made between Carl and Electronics Ltd. d. Does Electronics Ltd have a contract with Dana? Explain fully. For a contract to be valid under the common law, a contract should bear some clauses. The main term of a contract is the price paid and the services or goods provided. In fulfillment of both a contract in between parties will be established (Jones L, 2011, pp. 156- 160). It can be said that Dana had no contract with Electronics Ltd. The service of the contract had been provided but no payment for the same had been made. So the law of contract does not hold well in this case. 4. For consideration to be valid, it must be sufficient but need not be adequate. Explain this rule and cite relevant court decisions. The contract law of consideration is related with the negotiation made in-between the contract. A contract is always based upon the swap over of promises. There must be a promisor and a promisee. There will be a receipt of benefit and as an effect of the same there will be a toleration of detrimental. It assures that some promises will be implemented and the other promises made will not be implemented. In the law this benefit or detriment is termed as consideration. “Consideration must be something of value in the eyes of the law - (Thomas v Thomas) (1842) 2 QB 851” (Jones L, 2011, pp.131-147). So a principal basis for the implementation of promises is consideration. It is clearly stated that consideration excludes promises of love, any betting or gaming. In case if a one sided promise is not supported then that turns to be a gift in the eyes of law and gifts do not come in the preview of law. As per rules of consideration it must be something of past, it must move from the promisee. A relevant contractual duty will not be taken as a valid consideration. The above mentioned statement states that there is no obligation that the consideration made must be of market value. If something is given, which must have a value (like ?5), in exchange of any other materialistic thing then consideration is supposed to be there in the contract. The bargaining power of the parties in consideration does not come in the preview of court. (Jones L, 2011, pp. 131-147) Example of law of consideration can be cited from the case of Chappel v Nestle (1960) AC 87 House of Lords. In this case it has been observed that Nestle arranged for a sales promotion where they declared that any person sending three chocolate bar wrappers and a postal order of 1 shilling six d then he/she would be rewarded with a record. Chappel had the patent of one of the record offered. He disputed over the act of Nestle and wanted to stop the sale of the record which actually cost six shilling eight d in the open market. The Act of Copyright 1956 guarded the interest of the retailers from breach of copyright in case if they give any notice to the copyright holder and compensated them with 6.25% of their profit. Nestle notified the court that ordinary selling price was one shilling and six d and three chocolate bar wrappers. The court was questioned that whether the bar wrapper formed a part of the consideration. In case if it formed a part of consideration then it was impossible to make out the value in question. And in case if the wrappers were a sheer token or condition made for sale than making up consideration then the notice given would hold good and thus Nestle could sell the records. It was held that those wrappers formed an element of consideration with an objective to enhance the sale and so provided value. The actuality that those wrappers would be thrown away did not detract from this. So Chappel was allowed with the sanction and Nestle was forbidden from the sale of the records. References 1. Brotherton B, 2000, An Introduction To The UK Hospitability Industry, New York, Taylor & Francis 2. Jones L, 2011, Introduction To Business Law, New York, Oxford University Press 3. Luyulei Legal English Net , 2006-2011, Principle of Precedent: The Heart of Common Law System, retrieved on 20 July 2013 from: http://www.luyulei.net/cases/05_01-Principle_of_Precedent.html 4. R v Howe & Bannister, n.d. , E-Law Cases, retrieved on 20 July 2013 frm: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/R-v-Howe--and--Bannister.php Read More