Contract Law Case Study of Hotel

Contract Law Case subject of HotelContract law involving a hotel and client A.In this scenario, the set-back signifi give the axet testify is the nature of the parties several(prenominal) first dealings with one a nonher. From the hotels point of view, their first contact with A was through their ad on their website. This advertised the price of accommodation at the Scarborough Palms Hotel as being 300. From As point of view, his first contact with the hotel is through an sign emailed enquiry. Although we are not told exactly what As initial enquiry was concerned with, it is probable that it was simply asking for details of the draw out.In order to establish what the nature of the ultimate weightlift is, between the hotel and A, it is first necessary to find the toss and acceptance the constituent part of any signalise. An offer has been held to be a statement which objectively (I.e. to a reasonable observer) indicates that the person devising the offer is prepared to co ntract on the wrong specified in that offer (Gibson v Manchester city Council). It would at first sight, appear that the hotels website and advert for the accommodation at the specified price was an offer. This, however, is not the case, as it has been held by the courts that advertisements are usually invitations to treat rather than offers, as the advert usually lacks the opposite essential ingredient of a contract an intention to be legally bound (Partridge v Crittenden). This counterfeitula is in place in order to protect the advertiser from incurring liability in contract to everyone who is willing to purchase the goods (in this case, the holiday), at the advertised price. An invitation to treat is an invitation to the new(prenominal) society to negotiate the terms of a potential contract. A responds to this invitation by making his initial email enquiry, which can similarly be classed as an invitation to treat, or perhaps simply an enquiry. No offer has yet been made by either party (Fisher v price).The hotel then respond to As initial enquiry informing A of a special promotion that will entitle him to the accommodation at the price of 200. This intercourse will for certain be counted as an offer, as it displays an intention to be bound by the terms it mentions (a requirement that was first set out in the seminal case, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co). A then accepts the offer by filling in the online booking form. The hotel have stipulated a means of acceptance, by providing the online booking form which A is required to smash. This is, then, the hotels prescribed method of acceptance. A, through no fault of his own, is unable to complete this prescribed method of acceptance, despite his attempt. It is uncertain whether this will affect his acceptance. In Manchester Diocesan Council for cultivation v Commercial and General Investments Ltd, it was held that the prescribed method of acceptance was not the only possible one, provided the othe r method was no less advantageous to the offerer. Unless the hotel specifically stated that the online booking form was the only method of acceptance, As pecker of a hard copy would be valid.We come to the issue of communication of the acceptance to the offeror. Upon As arrival at the hotel, he is informed that his booking form did not arrive, and that there are no available rooms. It is an established principle that an acceptance must be communicated to the offeror in order for their to be a contract (Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes). In the present instance, however, the acceptance has been post by A. Following business firm Fire Insurance v Grant, the acceptance is effectively communicated on posting (the so called postal rule). In order for this rule to apply, however, it must have been reasonable for A to use the post to accept the offer (Quenerduaine v Cole). In this instance, since the online booking form was not working, it seems apt(predicate) that it would be found to have been a reasonable method of acceptance.As of this point, then, the contract exists between A and the hotel. The terms of the contract specify that A will have accommodation at the hotel for the price of 200. He will later be able to claim remedy for breach of contract from the hotel when they cannot furnish him with a room at that rate. Before that arises, however, there is a further contract which requires clarification. Upon As arrival, and stripping that his booking form has not arrived, he threatens to sue the hotel. The managers response is to make an offer of accommodation for 250. It is possible that subsequently, the hotel could claim the offer was made under undue influence. It is an established principle of contract law that where a contract is induced by undue pressure, it is voidable (Williams v Bayley). This means that if the hotel can establish that the manager made the offer under pressure, the agreement could be cancelled. A agrees to these terms, and a irre gular contract exists between the parties. A then spend his holiday at the hotel and completes the second contract.A subsequently claims for damages in the amount of 50. The hotel counter-claims for damages because A has breached the contractual term not to pursue an accomplish against the hotel. These two claims, however, refer to two distinct contracts, and both, it would seem, are legitimate claims. It is possible that through forming the second contract, the candid principle of waiver came into play. That is, by making the second contract, the parties (and A in particular), waived the right to claim damages (Hughes v Metropolitan Railway). There is also the possibility that by forming the second contract, the initial contract was frustrated, as it became impossible to carry out because the parties had subsequently contracted to the same agreement on different terms (Nickoll Knight v Ashton Edridge Co).With regard to the second contract, the hotel are within their rights to c laim damages for As breach. He has clearly broken his contractual promise not to pursue an action against the hotel. There is a contract rule that a claimant cannot call up damages in respect of a loss which is alike remote a consequence of the defendants breach of contract. If the losses flow naturally from the breach, which in this case they would appear to, the losses are recoverable (Hadley v Baxendale). The hotel, then, will be able to recover damages for As breach of the contract term subject, of course, to proving that this agreement was a term incorporated into the second contract.BIBLIOGRAPHYStatutesCases Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 1893 1 QB 256, CA Fisher v Bell 1961 1 QB 394 Gibson v Manchester City Council 1979 1 WLR 294 Hadley v Baxendale 1854 9 Exch 341 Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes 1974 1 WLR 155 Household Fire Insurance v Grant 1879 LR 4 Ex. D. 216, CA Hughes v Metropolitan Railway 1876-77 LR 2 App Cas 439, HL Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Com mercial and General Investments Ltd 1970 1 WLR 242 Nickoll Knight v Ashton Edridge Co 1901 2 KB 126, CA Partridge v Crittenden 1968 1 WLR 1204 Quenerduaine v Cole 1883 32 WR 185 Williams v Bayley 1866 LR 1 HL 200, HLSecondary Sources McKendrick, E., Contract Law (Oxford, 2003)