Legal advice ( ) - Case Study Example

This will include statutes and regulations that specifically define the use of such exclusion clauses in a contract. There are two situations involved in this case that would impact on the contractual obligations of Harpreet. The first involves the agreement between the hotel and Joseph and Rebecca. Their contract already involves Harpreet having received the monetary deposit. The cancellation of the wedding reception would, first and foremost, pose the question of whether Harpreet would be obligated to return the deposit given by the couple.

In the second scenario, the question posed would be the liability, if ever, of Harpreet for the damage to one of the hotel guest's cars that was parked there. Let us first tackle Joseph and Rebecca's situation. The doctrine of frustration operates in situations where it is established that due to a subsequent change in circumstances, the contract is rendered impossible to perform, or it has become deprived of its commercial purpose by an event not due to the act or default of either party1. In Taylor v Caldwell2 Blackburn J stated that ""The principle seems to us to be that, in contracts in which the performance depends on the continued existence of a given person or thing, a condition is implied that the impossibility of performance arising from the perishing of the person or thing shall excuse the performance.

" In this case the reception did not push through without the fault of either of the contracting parties. Both Harpreet and the couple have already partially performed their obligations under the contract with the former buying flowers, decorating the room and looking for a particular wine while the latter paid the deposit. So on this point, Harpreet no longer has any contractual liabilities to Joseph and Rebecca since the non-holding of the reception was not the hotel's fault.The second scenario requires a more elaborate understanding of contract law.

Julie's success in demanding for compensation from Harpreet for the damage to her car would depend on, 1) the exact terms of the contract she entered into with the hotel when she booked a stay there and 2) the validity of the general exemption of the hotel for damage to cars at their parking lot as shown by a sign that was posted there. Furthermore, clauses that exempt a party from liability must pass the test of incorporation, reasonable notice and construction or interpretation.On the first point, contract law is based on the fundamental principle of party autonomy.

This means that the parties to a contract are free to modify the nature and extent of their liability under the contract if they so wish on the assumption that the parties have equal bargaining power. It is not so obvious from the facts given whether the hotel contract itself stipulates for an escape from liability for damage to hotel guests' cars at their parking lot. We can safely assume that the sign in the parking lot warning car owners that they park at their own risk would refer to those persons who do not stay at the hotel but rather are mere transients.

Going back to Julie, the contract that she signed with the hotel when she checked in contains all the stipulations that govern their contractual relationship. Should this