Bliss Island Law Situation - Case Study Example

Business law Institution Name Tutor Subject Date The brochure which Julian and Ann had is a form of offer in accordance with the law of contract. Bliss Island offers various services and goods advertised in their brochure. In accordance with the law of contract; an offer is a proposal for entering into a contract made to a specific person and contains all the essential elements of the contract thus its acceptance results to entering into a contract (Stone & Devenney, 2013). The couple accepted the contract since they liked what was on offer at the Bliss Island. However, a sender of such information shall be liable for the damage caused to the clients, after failing, without a justified reason. In this case, the couple has a legal capacity to sue Bliss Island for any damages or loss of their property and to be compensated. The resort did not provide what the couple expected; in the brochure they stated that the resort has white, sandy beaches, beautiful tropical vegetation. This is not evident in their experience in the resort. In fact, they did not like the experience at all. Under a business court of law in their location they can sue the resort and seek compensation on the grounds that they paid for the service which was not in the contract hence the business is liable for this offence (Arnold et al, 2012). Bliss Island as a business entity went against the business law of tort and contract. Julian and Ann should ensure that they take a legal action against them. First of all the brochure they provided was twisted as per what the couple expected. The couple expected the best reef diving. The business breaches the law of tort (negligence tort). The business breaches that duty by failing to come up to the standard of care required by the law. They failed to provide them with the kind of reef diving the couple expected. Sandra, who is the manager of the resort, explained to Julian that the diving was always brilliant in that resort. But this turned out to be false since none of the couple enjoyed the diving. This is against the business law of tort under the element of negligence in the case of duty of care. There must be some act or omission on the part of the business. I.e. the business must have done some act of omission of what the couple expected making them liable for illegal omission (Winfield, 2013). This is evident in that the diving conditions were not good enough to please them. The standard demanded by law was not met by the business. The accessibility of the reef did not meet the standard; some parts had been damaged according to the couple experience. Also, the visibility of the reef was not up to their expectation; algae bloom had covered most parts of the reef. The cakes which they show on their brochure were not available to their client, Julian and Ann. This is against the business law of contract. Bliss Island show on the brochure services and goods that they don’t really provide to their clients. Sandra told them that the food in the resort was exceptional, referring to the cakes which Julian inquired about. The cakes turn out to be missing in the resort; this is against the law of contract. The reason as to why the cakes were missing was due to the departure of the chef who was responsible for cooking them. They were not made aware before booking that the chef who cooks the cakes had been replaced. The resort did not put into consideration the fact that the couple had been pleased with the cakes, that being one of the reasons they chose Bliss Island for their holiday. The resort did not take a step of employing a replacement who would provide similar services so as to satisfy their client but instead they employed chef who was specialized in Indian food. This is an offence as far as business laws are concerned. The business went against the business law of contract; express contract applies where the two parties agree to the terms either by writing or orally. Promises made during the contract become enforceable since they result in an express contract. In the case of Julian and the Bliss Island, promises were made from the time Sandra told Julian that the food in the resort was going to be exceptional. Since the contract is enforceable and either party can sue or be sued in case of a breach of contract; Bliss Island will be found responsible for breaching of the contract and are to be held responsible hence they must compensate the couple. Julian’s wallet and Ann’s jewelry got lost in the process of their stay in the bliss island. Although the business is claiming that it takes no responsibility for the personal property lost inside the rooms of clients. This is a different case since the result of losing the good was not due to the negligence of the clients but the workers of bliss island resort; the house maid left the room unlocked. In accordance with the law of torts (civil wrong); whoever causes injury or loss to another shall be liable to redress it (Zipursky, 2012). Unless he/she proves that the damage was caused without his fault. Under this case, Bliss Island are to be held responsible for the loss of Julian’s wallet and Ann’s jewelry. Also in reference to the law of tort under negligence. Which states clearly that a person may not be responsible for every careless act because he/she is not under the legal duty to take care of that action? This makes them responsible for the lost items and, therefore, liable to compensate their clients for their losses. The bliss island may also decide to argue that they did not commit any offence to Julian and Ann. Especially in the case of lost items inside the rooms of the couple; they have clearly stated that they will not take responsibility for any loss of items in the room. An investigation should be conducted to decide on whether to hold the defendant responsible for the loss or not. May be the result of loss was due to carelessness of the couple in the first place. But although this may look like a leeway for the business it may be cut short by the fact that the carelessness of the couple is covered under the business laws. Julian and Ann were not aware that their room will be left unlocked by the house maid. If they were aware, they might have taken their belongings with them. This makes the business fully responsible for the loss of items by their client. Moreover, the business may challenge their clients that they used descriptive words in creating their brochure. Words like beautiful, exceptional are descriptive and this words, these words are normally relative. Something said to be beautiful may not actually be beautiful to everyone who experiences it or uses it. But the laws of business in Australia protect consumers from information which is misleading (Barker et al, 2012). The information was misleading to the clients such that they were not mentioning the level of correctness of their brochure. The resort claimed that the chef who had cooked the cakes in the brochure had been relieved from duty. This does not provide a scapegoat for Bliss Island; they were supposed to inform their clients on arrival about the challenges they were facing pertaining the chef. But instead they replaced the chef with another Pakistani chef who was not able to provide the same services that their clients expected. They provided curry which was not a favorite for their clients. Bliss Island might also claim that they provided their client with a reef. This is true, in this case, Julian and gave evidence about their experience in the reef. But this does not match their expectations as the couple explained their dissatisfaction concerning their diving experience. It is evident in the way the reef is described. A person cannot have a good experience in a place where there is algae bloom. A reef with some of its part left abandoned due to its accessibility and visibility. Furthermore, the reef is damaged, and no repairs were being done on it. This makes it a bad experience as far as Julian and Ann are concerned. In the business tribunals in Australia, consumers are protected against misleading advertisement, in this case, the business is liable for providing misleading information (Gilligan et al, 2014). In conclusion the business entity is liable for three offences; providing misleading information to the consumers, going against the law of tort under negligence (duty of care) and breaching of contract. They should compensate the couple in accordance to the legal process undertaken in any tribunal in Australia. Bibliography Arnold, D. G., Beauchamp, T. L., & Bowie, N. (2012). Ethical Theory and Business. Pearson Higher Ed. Barker, K., Cane, P., Lunney, M., & Trindade, F. (2012). The law of torts in Australia. Oxford University Press. Gilligan, G., O'Brien, J., & Bowman, M. (2014). Foreign Investment Law and Policy in Australia: A Critical Analysis. CIFR Paper, (008). Stone, R., & Devenney, J. (2013). The modern law of contract. Routledge. Winfield, P. H. (2013). The Province of the Law of Tort. Cambridge University Press. Zipursky, B. C. (2012). The law of torts. The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law, 261. Read More