Bliss Island Law Situation - Case Study Example

Surname: Tutor’s name: Date: Business law Introduction In this case there are two parties Julian and Anna, on the other hand there is Bliss Island. Julian and Anna are guests in Bliss restaurant, before they visit the restaurant they have made some enquiries about the state of the restaurant, they contact Sandra who is in charge of the restaurant and she assures them that everything was okay. Mostly they are concerned with diving and the quality of cakes offered which are the two main things Julian is mostly interested in. They consequently visit the restaurant but to their surprise they find that diving was not that convenient since the tropical weather was not conducive plus the beach had a lot of algae. The cakes that they had also enquired about also turn not to be there since the Chef who was baking them as shown in the brochure had already left the hotel. It also happen that during the visit Julian left his wallet in the room, the housemaid washing the rooms forget to lock the room and Pete came to the room and stole the wallet.. Facts about the case This case can be looked from two perspectives, the first one is under the law of contract and the second one is under the law of tort. Under the law of contract it is evident that the two parties entered into contract since it satisfy the following elements of a contract. One in a contract there must be an offer and the offer must be accepted by the other party and it must be done so through mutual consent (Sullivan, 88). Bliss hotel makes an offer through their brochure of providing good diving services and also providing good cakes. Julian and Bliss after seeing this offer they accept it by going ahead to visit the hotel so as to celebrate their twentieth wedding anniversary. The offer is accepted on a mutual consent since there is no any coercion. The second element is the existence of a consideration which the amount Julian and Anna are charged in exchange of the services to be provided by Bliss hotel. The parties entering into the contract are also of sound mind since they are not minors and they are sober and not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and there are no facts provided as to prove the contrary to this. The fourth element is the purpose for which they are entering the contract and it’s not something illegal and it is something within which Bliss hotel exists to provide. Thus since there are all the elements required in a contract thus it is a valid contract (Meyer, 17). Thus under this contract Bliss hotel has an obligation to provide Julian and Anna with good diving facilities and also offer cakes as advertised for in their brochure. Failure to provide these services would amount to breach of a contract and they can be sued by the other party. Julian and Anna have an obligation to pay for the services to be provided by Bliss hotel failure to which would amount to a breach of contract. The legal redress incase of a breach of a contract is as follows; the party to which a contract was breached can either rescind the contact or the court can provide for damages. The plaintiff seeks for damages caused as a result of breach of a contract and can also go further to seek for loss incurred as a result of a breach of a contract (Cooke, 52). The amount of damages to be provided is at the discretion of the judge in the case after consideration of all the relevant facts of the case and the precedent set by other previous cases. The case is also applicable under the law of tort under negligence. Under the law of tort a company owes duty of care to all it customers visiting (Meyer, 43). Bliss hotel in our case owes duty of care to Julian and Anna who are their customers. Thus any commission or omission that would cause harm to Juliana and Anna would be termed as negligence can be sued for legal redress. The breach of a duty that is applicable under negligence is one which could have been avoided if reasonable care would have been taken. The plaintiff must also prove that some loss was suffered as a result of negligence (Cooke, 77). This means that prove for negligence is not enough to justify a plaintiff to seek for damages but it must be accompanied by prove of loss incurred. The only instance where the plaintiff is exempted for this is under the principle of res ipsa loquitur (Sullivan, 23). This literally means that the thing under consideration speaks for itself. Here the burden of proof will lie to the defendant to proof that negligence was not on his side. In our case Bliss provide a notice in the room where Julian and Anna reside warning that the hotel is not liable for any item lost inside the room. Julian leave his wallet in the room and it is stolen by Pete after the maid forgot to lock the door. The housemaid who is an employee of Bliss is negligent because she did not lock the door and as a result Julian loses his wallet to Pete. Here all the elements under the law of tort are present, first Bliss owes Julian duty of care, second there is negligent which finally leads to loss suffering by Julian. The fact that there were writing on the door of the room purporting that the hotel is not liable for anything lost can not itself justify negligence by the housemaid. Relevant case laws Carlill v. Carbolic smoke ball Under this case the defendant which was a company selling carbolic smoke ball put an advertisement providing $100 for anybody who would suffer from a flu despite consuming their drugs. Carlill happened to suffer from the said flu even after taking those drugs. The defendants then refused to pay the plaintiff the said amount of money claiming that they never meant to enter into a contact by the advertisement. The jury in the case ruled that a contract had been entered by both parties and ordered for the company to pay the plaintiff the aforesaid amount. The case at hand is also similar since through the brochure provided by Bliss Julian and Anna gets to enter into a contract with the hotel. The contract is such that Bliss is to offer good diving services plus the cakes specified in the brochure to Julian and Anna. It then turns out that both the diving services and the cake is not as agreed and thus there is breach of the contract. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) In this case Lord Macmillan stipulated that existence of carelessness itself is not enough, the party being careless must owes the duty to care to the other party, also there must be loss suffered due to this carelessness. In the event that there is carelessness and there is no loss suffered the plaintiff cannot seek for damages. In our case the housemaid is careless since she does not lock the door and Julian suffers loss as a result of this carelessness. Scott v London & St. Katherine’s Docks Co. In this case a bag felled to a custom officer who was passing in one of the warehouse. The Jury in this case ruled that incase of something that is foreseeable to cause harm the defendant is liable such harm occurs. The defendant or his servant ought to have applied due care to prevent such an event to occur. In such a case the plaintiff is not bound to prove on the duty of care. This is rather considered as a case of res ipsa loquitor where the thing is assumed to speak to itself. The burden will rather shift to the defendant to prove that no duty of care was owed or there was no negligence on his side. Comparing the principles of this case to the case at hand, the house maid of Bliss hotel is a servant of the defendant and thus any acts or omission by her which affects the clients will be considered as a liability of Bliss hotel. Thus her omission to provide duty of care by locking the guest room which prompts to the loss of Julian’s wallet is a lack of duty of care by the hotel. In the eyes of the law Bliss Island ought to take duty of care to its clients Juliana and Anna, thus Bliss is liable to the negligence that lead to the loss of Juliana’s wallet. Advise to Anna and Julian Under the law of contract Bliss Island has breached it contract with both Julian and Anna. They should sue for breach of this contract and seek for damages. They should seek for damages incurred in travelling all the way to Bliss Island since there was misrepresentation of facts when they were entering into that contract. They should also seek for damages for the services paid for since they never turned to be what was agreed to under the law of tort, Julian should sue Bliss Island for the wallet lost as a result of negligence on part of Bliss. The reason being that since Julian was a client for Bliss Island they owed him duty to care. References Sullivan, Janet, and Jonathan Hilliard. The law of contract. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. Print. Meyer, Lars. Non-performance and Remedies under International Contract Law Principles and Indian Contract law: A Comparative Survey of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, the Principles of European Contract Law, and Indian Statutory Contract. Frankfurt Am Main: P. Lang, 2010. Print. (Cooke,) Philip. Law of Tort. 8th ed. Harlow: Longman, 2007. Print. Read More