Business Law - Julian and Sandra - Essay Example

Business Law Еssаy Students Name Institution Supervisors Name Date Facts This case lays on the fact that Julian and Anna experienced a failed 20th wedding anniversary. The issue began when they planned to go on a holiday together to the Bliss Island which is a small, exclusive tropical island in the Whitsundays Queensland. However the impression that they were given about the island was very different from what they found on the ground. First of all as they booked for the hotel, the brochure for the Bliss Island showed that the island had sandy beaches, surrounded by beautiful tropical vegetation and a very attractive five star resort. According the facts on the brochure, the Island also offered some of the best reef diving one can experience in the world, and that this diving experience was available all year round. The brochure also added that visitors would enjoy some of the finest food that is prepared by some of the best chefs in Australia. The picture of the chef was in the brochure showing nice food and cakes that looked very delicious. After choosing the venue for their holiday, Julian called Sandra, the owner of the hotel to book. He also inquired from Sandra about the conditions for driving to the venue. Sandra replied without hesitation that the driving to the venue has always been very brilliant. Julian also mentioned to Sandra that he enjoyed eating delicious cakes and that he was looking forward to eating lots of cake once on the venue. Sandra on her part assured that the food was exceptional and that Julian and his spouse would enjoy once they get there. Legal Issue The legal issue here lays between the breach of contract and Mutual trust[Sim14]. The case is related to Coward v. Motor Insurers’ Bureau where there was an offer and acceptance to an offer1. This is because what the Venue promised and what Sandra assured Julian and Anna was very different from what they found on the ground. First of all, the reef diving was not good at all. Julian and his spouse experienced tropical storms and an algae bloom, this meant that the diving area was less visible and also the accessible parts of the reef had been damaged. The two also found that the chef whose pictures were used for promotion on the brochure had left the island and was replaced by a Two-hat Pakistan Chef who only specialized on making Indian food. To make matters worse, the venue is not as secure and comfortable as was assured by Sandra. The couple in fact found a note on the door that warned visitors to take responsibility of their items and that this was included in the contract. Unfortunately Anna’s suitcase was stolen in the same action. Applicable Law The Applicable law here is the law of contract; this is because one has to look at the legality of the offer and acceptance[Phiic]. This is the unqualified expression of assent to the terms of acceptance of the offer as was indicated by Julian and Anna[Lin13]. There was also a clear communication of acceptance of the terms that were put forward in the brochure and as assured by Sandra during the inquiry made by Julian. However as was found out, the offer was different from what they found on the ground. The two can use the law of contract to establish the terms of the contract since they are in dispute[Lin05]. And even though the facts set aside were self-explanatory in what they couples expected, that they would experience the best wedding anniversary with all the items assured by Sandra on the phone call and the venue brochure, the most important issue here is that they had a different experience from this[JLR10]. The law of contract will thus be used to protect them exploration which was done without their knowledge[Pat12]. The phrase in the law of contract dictates that any purchase of goods or service must not in any way affect the purchaser’s statutory rights under the terms of the contract[Bor10]. There was an offer and acceptance for this case which is they main condition for signing of the contract, there should also be a requirement for consideration. For this case, Sandra had to follow the terms under which there would be exchange of money for the services stipulated in the brochure and during the telephone inquiry with Julian. This is the bone of contention in this case, since what the two parties experience is not what was agreed upon in the conversation. However, in the facts, we are not told as to whether the two parties signed a valid contract expressing these terms, this makes what Sandra said nothing but a promise, meaning that they two cannot hold Sandra liable for what they experienced in return. However, there was an invitation to an offer, which makes it a valid contract, and the fact that Julian and Anna accepted to the offer stipulated by Sandra. The Julian and Sandra issues is like the case between carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.2 where the case involved the defendant company that produced and advertised smoke balls as being a preventive measure against common cold and influenza. According to the advertisement, company was going to give 100 pounds to any person that used the product for a period of three times a day for two week and was still found to contract any of the two illnesses. The defendant also added that they had deposited 1000 pounds in the bank that will be used to demonstrate their sincerity[Ada09]. The claimant in this case decided to take the challenge of taking the drugs, unfortunately after a period of 8 weeks of continuous use of the drugs, she still contracted flu. For this reason Mrs. Carlill went ahead to claim 100 pounds, however the defendant refused to pay, the company claimed that there was no contract in place for the Mrs. Carlill in enforce the claim. As the matter was taken to the court of appeal. The defendant added that they had no intention of creating legal relations and that the advertisement amounted to nothing more than an invitation to treat. There was not in any way that Mrs. Carlill indicated to the defendant that she had accepted the offer[Phiic]. Luckily, the court of appeal also confirmed that there was in fact a contract that existed between the parties. This situation amounted to what is referred to as a unilateral contract; this is because the company offered money in exchange for the performance of the act of taking the drugs for a certain period. With regard to the Case of Julian and Sandra, a promotional advertisement may amount to nothing more than an invitation to treat, however the invitation and assurity made by Sandra made it an offer[Pat12]. This means that there is actually no requirement for Julian and Anna to inform Sandra that they had accepted the offer, the fact that they decided to take their vacation in the described venue automatically meant that they had accepted the offer. Conclusion In conclusion, it can be agreed that Julian and Anna have the grounds to sue Sandra and her Island resort for the breach of contract. And as much as Sandra may try to argue that they did not sign an agreement that they would enjoy everything that was stipulated in the promotional brochure and through the telephone conversation between Julian and her, the expression by the brochure and the telephone conversation simply stated that provided Julian and Ann made the trip to the resort, they would enjoy the most luxurious secure hotel rooms, delicious foods and cakes and diving in the clear reef waters in addition to walking in great tropical vegetation. The fact that Sandra also assured Julian on the phone that they would experience all that was written in the brochure,was also a demonstration that Sandra meant what she said and was willing to provide the couple with the experience described in the promotional brochure. If the couple to take the matter to courts, then the sitting court will have no hesitation in finding specific circumstances that will prove there was a contract between the couple and Sandra’s blissful resort and that the couple had a legal right to demand for a refund since they did enjoy all that was stipulated in the contract. Sources Sim14: , (Kozlina, Jeannie, Robertson, & Duke, 2014), Phiic: , (Clarke & Clarke, 2012), Lin13: , (Willmott, 2013), Lin05: , (Willmott, Christensen, & Butler, Contract Law, 2005), JLR10: , (Davis, 2010), Pat12: , (Paterson, Marie, Robertson, & Duke, 2012), Bor10: , (Bordia, Restubog, Lloyd, & Bordia, 2010), Ada09: , (Rollnik, 2009), Read More