Consumer Law - Seema and Robin - Case Study Example

In attempting to critically analyse the given case and advise Seema and Robin of their rights in civil and criminal law, it is imperative to define some of the underlying legal terms that are pertinent to the case such as civil, consumer as well as criminal laws. This would facilitate easier understanding of the case in order to give informed advice on how the two can solve the differences emanating from the given case. Web definition describes civil law as that branch of law which particularly deals with disputes between individuals and organizations. In some instances, compensation may be awarded to the victim where necessary. Consumer law entails that a buyer and a seller enter into a contract and an agreement is reached and both parties must be protected by the law to avoid incidences of dishonesty which may result in the other part loosing in the deal (Mason 1990). The consumers in this particular case should be well informed about their rights. On the other hand, according to the online HG.org worldwide directories, “criminal law which is often called penal law, involves prosecution by the government of a person for an act that has been classified as a crime.” A crime is further defined as, “any act or (commission of an act) in violation of a public law forbidding it.” Criminal law is often considered as the most effective technique that can be used to combat certain wrongful acts of conduct according to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. In the UK, theft in the form of fraud is classified as a criminal law. Each country has laws that are primarily designed to protect the citizens from loosing their hard earned money when they enter into agreements with organisations which may not be honesty. Thus, information obtained online posits to the effect that, “the UK for instance has a generally well established and mature framework for consumer legislation which seeks to ensure that consumers can understand the nature of the goods and services being provided, and the standards they can expect from business.” For instance, there is the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) aimed at ensuring fair business practices between the consumers and the business operators offering various goods and services. Thought to a lesser extent, the Consumer Protection Act of 1987 can as well be inferred to this study but it is particularly concerned with consumer safety and liability on behalf of the providers of goods and services. A close analysis of Seema and Robin’s case shows that they were given a raw deal by both the motoring company where they hired a car and the hotel in which they had booked to spend their weekend. As a matter of fact, they paid up in advance all their bills including insurance which would guarantee their safety and coverage in the event of an unfortunate incident such as an accident. They also paid up for their booking in advance but they did not get the suite they were supposed to get during their first day. Their theatre tickets were also cancelled for no apparent reason and no advance communication was made to Robin and Seema. It can be noted that they did not enjoy their weekend as they had anticipated and their situation has been aggravated by the demands of extra payments for the services they did not use. In as far as the law is concerned, they have the legal right to be protected from unscrupulous businesses. The law says that an individual has the right not to keep to what has agreed in the first place if ever dealing with a company should he or she feels that the contract is unfair. The law further stipulates that the contract must be written in plain language which is easy to understand by both parties. After paying an excess insurance cover to Motoring World, it meant that Seema and Robin were completely covered in the event of an accident. As fate would have it, they were involved in an accident after already noticing that the car was somehow faulty. Surprisingly, Robin later received a bill advising him to pay for the repairs of which John the owner of Motoring World pointed that there was an exclusion clause covering motoring repairs and this was written in very small print at the back of the form and was very hard to understand what it meant. From the look of things, it can be seen that this is not a fair deal since John deliberately ignored to make clear all the clauses that were binding in the contract. It can be seen that the clause written in very small print at the back of the form has be designed to defraud unsuspecting customers in the event that there has been an accident. A contract between two parties should be in clear terms for each part to fully understand the contents of it so as to cases of foul. If John had been open in the first place by explaining all the clauses including the one in small print like he did with others, Robin could not have been crying foul since they would have understood all the contents of the contract. Legally, Robin is entitled to refuse to meet the extra cost and can even take up his matter to the court. In deciding if the contract would have been unfair, the law states that the court would, “look at whether it is unfairly weighted against you, whether there was unequal bargaining strength and whether the company / business behaved properly in getting you to agree to the terms of the contract.” For instance in UK there is a provision enshrined under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations which comprises of a department of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). This is also known as the Unfair Contract Terms Unit which specifically deals with issues related to contracts that are deemed as unfair. If a consumer feels that the contract is unsatisfactory, he or she can approach this department which would then negotiate to have the contract amended so as to meet the requirements agreed upon. This department can as well decide that the contract be rescinded in the event of gross anomalies or can induct a court to provide a ruling whenever they reach a deadlock. Against this background, Seema and Robin are strongly advised that their consumer rights have been violated and should not pay the extra money demanded by Motoring World. The evidence is there for all and sundry to see that John has not been faithful in keeping his contractual obligations. Legally, their rights are protected by the laws of the land and in legal terms, there is nobody who is above the law. The courts can decided on their behalf if there has been unfair treatment with regards to their contract with John. In the first place a contract should be well understood by both parties involved and in this particular case, it seems that the contract has been unfairly weighted against them where John seems to be wielding the bargaining of powers. Instead John is trying to unfairly benefit from a contract at the expense of innocent customers who have done everything in order to fulfil their contractual obligations which is a noble thing. In other words it can be noted that John is trying to fraudulently get extra money from Robin by misrepresenting the actual contents of the contract in the first place. If proved that John is trying to defraud Robin, then the case can be classified under criminal law. In the case, Seema booked into The Middlesex Hotel in Birmingham and requested for a special suite together with champagne and sandwiches as well as theatre tickets. She paid up all the money using a credit card and even received confirmation via email for her booking. Surprisingly, when they arrived the hotel had let their suite and they were given an equally very small room. The receptionist apologised and they were promised their room at a later time only to discover that the room was in a complete mess. By virtue of apologising, the receptionist showed that they were to blame and this can be clearly said to be a breach of the contract. However, Robin did a noble thing by refusing to pay for extra costs of the services they had not used such as the phone bill. Legally, Seema and Robin are entitled to get a refund since they got a raw deal from the hotel. The hotel staff failed to honour their contractual obligation by upholding the terms and conditions of the contract. Under the stipulations of the civil law, they can be advised to get compensation from part of the money which they did not honestly consume while they were booked at the hotel. Complimentary breakfast was only there to mollify them but the hotel staff fully knew that the confusion was created with full knowledge. All the blame squarely lies in the hotel staff for deciding to give the room probably to their colleagues whilst somebody had paid for the service. Robin and Seema can prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt and they would be entitled to get a refund in such a case. In such a scenario, the hotel staff if they are professional would know that their act of dishonesty would negatively affect their credibility hence the need for Robin to launch a complaint with the management. They cannot be liable to meet extra costs when in fact they should get compensation from the poor service which did not meet their expectations. From the provisions enshrined in the civil law, the two are advised to take legal action against the hotel which may result in them getting compensation from part of the money they had paid. Both Robin and Seema’s legal rights were violated by the hotel management when they later pointed out that they have a clause on their brochure which gave them the right to change the bookings at the discretion of the management. Apparently, they did not see the brochure themselves which is a clear violation of their rights. When entering into a contract, both parties should agree on the terms and conditions binding that contract and it should be understood by both parties. Indeed to mention later that there is a certain clause unknown to the other part is tantamount to dishonesty with the sole intent of cheating the unsuspecting customer. Civil laws with regards to consumer rights are designed in such a way that both parties must understand the conditions of the contract in order to avoid conflict and misunderstanding in the event that the other part has breached the contract whether knowingly or unknowingly. In accompaniment of a special suite at the hotel, Seema and Robin did not get the champagne and any room service. To their surprise, when they checked out, they were informed that the bill included the champagne they had not consumed. By any standard, they are entitled to get compensation or a refund from their money. It seems somebody enjoyed the services that were meant for them with the full knowledge of the hotel staff which gives them the right to claim for a refund. Unfair business practices that would result in the customer loosing are against the law hence it is advisable that they can take legal action if needs be in order to recover their money for the services they did not enjoy. In all honesty, the hotel staff should not have caused more problems by claiming additional monies when in fact they fully knew that they had breached a contract with two innocent customers who deserve a refund should they need to take legal action against them. Another unfortunate incident which warrantees Seema and Robin to get compensation is the one when their theatre tickets were sold out when in fact they had received confirmation before that their tickets were reserved. This is a clear breach of contract where the hotel staff out of greediness decided to make double money from the tickets already sold. If they had not decided to go to the cinema, they would still be entitled to get compensation since it was not their fault to loose the tickets but a result of wrongful acts by somebody fully aware that he is breaching the contract. Their rights are protected under the civil laws of the country. The act of selling one thing to two different people is more often regarded as calculated theft which is an apparent breach of any contract between two people. Each human being is entitled to be protected by the law of the land as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. An act of deliberately defrauding another person with the sole aim of reaping undeserved gains is treated as an offence and the person who would have violated the rights of another would be liable to pay the damages as prescribed by the law. Over and above it can be noted that there are clauses enshrined in both civil and criminal laws with the purpose of protecting the rights of the consumers as far as contracts pertaining to the exchange of services between organisations and individuals are concerned. A critical analysis of the case of Seema and Robin involving The Middlesex Hotel in Birmingham and Motoring World clearly shows that their consumer rights were violated since they ended up failing to enjoy the services they had actually paid for at higher costs. In the case involving the hotel, they are in fact entitled to get compensation than them paying extra money on top of the services they had not enjoyed. They are advised that should they wish they can launch claims to recover the losses incurred since there are laws which are clearly defined with the sole purposes of protecting the right of the consumers who may fall prey to unscrupulous business operators. References David McQuoid-Mason (1990), Street Law: Consumer Law, Juta SA Criminal law-Penal law-Guide to criminal and Penal Law Accessed from: http://www.hg.org/crime.html 20 August 2009. Consumer law review: Call for evidence, accessed on 20 August 2009, from: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file45196.pdf Compactlaw, accessed on 20 Aug. 09, from: http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/free_legal_information/consumer_law/consumer.html Unfair contracts, accessed on 20 Aug. 09, from: http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/free_legal_information/consumer_law/consumf5.html Differences between criminal law and civil Law, accessed on 20 Aug. 09, from: http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm Guide to consumer protection Act of 1987, accessed on 20 August 2009, from: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file22866.pdf Cornel University Law School (2009), Civil rights: an Overview, Retrieved on 20 August 2009, from: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Civil_rights Consumer law: What is a contract? Retrieved on 20 August 2009: from: http://www.paralegaladvice.org.za/docs/chap11/02.html Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948 Read More