Violation of Business Laws by the Bliss Island - Essay Example

Business law Name: Institution: Date: Introduction In this case, it is advisable for the couple to take a legal step to seek justice and sue the bliss island resort. According to Lewis, B. (2014), when a firm creates an advertisement or brochure, and there are clients interested in those services advertised. The business will be liable for any breach of contract or agreement between the two parties involved. The client can sue the business on the grounds of violation of business law of contract. In this case, Julian and Ann are in a position to either seek compensation from the Bliss Island resort for the inconveniences caused on their trip to the resort. The business made a contract with the couple when Julian called to book for the reservation. This contract was oral, and it is legal according to Miceli, T. J. (1997). Violation of business laws by the bliss island Law of contract Bliss island resort brochure contained graphics that attracted Julian and Ann. The white, sandy beaches and beautiful tropical vegetation attracted them. Especially Julian was interested with this resort due to the cakes that were used in the creation of the brochure. Julian liked eating cakes this lead to selection of this resort as their holiday destination. On their arrival at the resort, they were received and shown their room. The couple was not informed that they were not going to get some products like cakes which Julian liked. This is breaching the law of contract according to Lewis, B. (2014). The couple can seek compensation since they paid for products that were not offered by the resort. In any tribunal in Australia, the defendant being Bliss Island will be liable for this offence on the grounds of breaching the law of contract since this was an express contract. The business failed to meet the expectation and the terms that they made in the brochure (Richards, 2006). Furthermore, the Bliss Island provided a brochure that contained a good looking five-star resort. Beautiful tropical vegetation is not evident in the experience of Julian and Ann as they explained after the holiday. This is an omission according to Guzman, A. T. (2002). An advert or a brochure should be able to portray products and services which are offered by the business. They should not contain information which is not real. In this case, the information provided by the Bliss Island brochure contained information which were not real. This offence can be filed in a tribunal and any necessary court action be initiated on the ground of terms of the offer which is said to be free from vagueness. The offer should be definite and unambiguous and not loose for it to avoid any breaching of contract according to the business law of contract. Julian and Ann were also keen divers; this was one of the reasons they choose bliss island resort for their holiday. The resort had a reef as indicated in the brochure thus making the couple choose the resort. When the Julian and Ann were there, they were not satisfied with the kind of reef diving that they experience. To the opposite of their expectations, the reef was damaged at some parts. This made diving such a bad experience for the couple. Furthermore, the visibility of the reef was not up to their expectation. When Julian called the manager (Sandra) who was in charge of the resort, she explained to Julian that the diving as exceptional is hence making the couple expect an interesting diving in the resort. The business went against the business law of contract. According to O'Sullivan, et al., (2014), a product or service offered by a business to its client must be covered in every aspect. The products must be of desired quality, and the services must be satisfactory to the client. On this ground, the client can sue the business if they violate this principle. Another option is for the business to estimate the cost of the product which is not covered in the offer and compensate their clients. Another act of breaching of the law of tort under negligence is witnessed where Julian’s wallet and Ann’s jewelry are stolen by Pete. According to the law of tort, a client may not be judged in the event of the occurrence of the act of carelessness. The client will only be liable in the event when it the client’s sole purpose to guard the item or property under question. In this case, both Ann and Julian were not responsible for the guarding of their property. Although the banner near their room stated that the bliss island resort was not going to be responsible for items in the room of their clients. The incident of Julian losing his wallet and Ann losing her jewelry can be tied to the resort inability to employ workers who are responsible. The room attendant left the house unlocked this lead to Pete getting into the room. According to Cartwright (2014), the duty of care is the sole responsibility of the business since the loss resulted from one of the employees of Bliss Island. Thereby, the business can be sued on this ground. In any tribunal in Australia, the defendant which is the bliss island will be found guilty of this offence. The couple has the right to be compensated for their loss under the provision of business laws (McKendrick, 2014). The information provided by Sandra and the brochure of the bliss island can term as exaggerated. Sandra told Julian that they offered exceptional food and brilliant diving. This is an exaggeration in accordance to the law of business laws on advertisement and service delivery. In a tribunal, the business will be liable for this offence. This will be considered as misleading information to the customers. The business can also react to some of these allegations. The business can argue that their information was misunderstood by their clients. The use of relative terms in the communication between Julian and Sandra can bail them out. However, the relativity of terms is not provided for in the business laws. The terms used in a business should be true and non-ambiguous so as to be argued upon according to the business law. Also, the cakes that were used in the creation of the brochure were not provided by the business. The business can defend itself by saying that the chef in charge of cooking of those cakes had been discharged from his duty prior to the visit by Julian and Ann to the resort. This will not act as reason why they did not offer cakes to their client. Instead, they should have employed another chef who will replace the other one. But instead the resort employed a chef who was specialized in Indian food. This is what will make them liable for the offence as per the business law of contract. Accusation of the kind of reef diving can be challenged by the resort. They can argue that they made the reef available as per the contract. The only thing that will make the liable for this accusation is the dissatisfaction from their clients. According to Sharkey (2014), a business is supposed to provide services and products that are of permitted standard. The inaccessibility of a product makes the business liable for going against the business laws as explained above. The defendant can also challenge that the items that were lost by their client was not part of their responsibility to look after. This is because the banner stated that the business does not cover any loss of items inside clients’ room. But this happened under their watch, the client can link the stealing with the resort since the loss resulted from negligence of the resort workers (Oughton, & Harvey, 2015). May be Pete related in one way or the other with the room attendant. So it will make the business liable for this offence. To sum up the business did not abide by the business law in terms of treating their clients. They should be penalized for the offences. First they should be liable to provision of misleading information. They cheated their clients that they are going to provide them with some of the best services, but they failed in that. Secondly they indicated products that were not there in the resort, cakes in this case were not provided to their clients, and this being one the reasons the clients chose the resort over others. They were highly unsatisfied by the kind of products they were given (Latimer, & Maume, 2015). Lastly, the clients property were not well taken care of. Julian lost his wallet, and Ann lost her jewelry. This is against the law of tort under negligence of the defendant (Schaffer et al. 2014). The business will be liable for the offences mentioned above and are supposed to compensate their clients for the inconvenience caused while selling their products and services. For this case Julian and Ann in a position to take legal action against the resort if they are not compensated by the resort. References Cartwright, J. (2014). Contract law: An introduction to the English law of contract for the civil lawyer. A&C Black. Guzman, A. T. (2002). A compliance-based theory of international law. California Law Review, 1823-1887. Latimer, P., & Maume, P. (2015). Promoting Information Under Broker/Client Rules at Common Law and in Equity. In Promoting Information in the Marketplace for Financial Services (pp. 85-116). Springer International Publishing. Lewis, B. (2014). Jersey Law Review| Guernsey law of tort and contract: De principiis. McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press. Miceli, T. J. (1997). Economics of the law: Torts, contracts, property, litigation. OUP Catalogue. O'Sullivan, Janet, and Jonathan Hilliard. The law of contract. Oxford University Press, 2014. Oughton, D., & Harvey, B. (2015). Qamp; a Revision Guide Law of Torts 2015 and 2016. Oxford University Press. Richards, P. (2006). Law of contract. Pearson Education. Schaffer, R., Agusti, F., & Dhooge, L. (2014). International business law and its environment. Cengage Learning. Sharkey, C. M. (2014). Tort-Agency Partnerships in an Age of Preemption. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 15(2), 359-386. Read More