Contract Law Case Study of Hotel

Contract Law Case Study of HotelContract law involving a hotel and invitee A.In this scenario, the first significant point is the nature of the parties respective first dealings with one another. From the hotels point of view, their first contact with A was finished their advertisement on their website. This advertize 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 initial emailed enquiry. Although we are not told exactly what As initial enquiry was concerned with, it is prob competent that it was simply asking for details of the wish.In order to free-base what the nature of the ultimate take in is, amid the hotel and A, it is first necessary to find the domiciliate and acceptance the constituent parts of any contract. An offer has been held to be a statement which objectively (I.e. to a reason qualified observer) indicates that the person devising the offer is prepared to contract on the terms 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 normally invitations to treat rather than offers, as the advert usually lacks the other essential ingredient of a contract an intention to be legally bound (Partridge v Crittenden). This principle is in place in order to protect the advertiser from incurring liability in contract to everyone who is bequeathing to purchase the goods (in this case, the holiday), at the advertised price. An invitation to treat is an invitation to the other party 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 Bell ).The hotel consequently respond to As initial enquiry in make watering A of a special promotion that will entitle him to the accommodation at the price of 200. This communication will certainly 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 germinal case, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke thump Co). A then accepts the offer by filling in the online participation form. The hotel have stipulated a direction of acceptance, by providing the online booking form which A is required to complete. 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 questionable whether this will affect his acceptance. In Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments Ltd, it was held that the prescribed method of acceptance was not the only practical one, provided the ot her method was no less advantageous to the offeror. Unless the hotel specifically stated that the online booking form was the only method of acceptance, As posting 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 posted by A. Following Household 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 likely 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 damages 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 discovery 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 sustain 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 prosecute an action 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 equitable 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). thither 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 claim 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 recover damages in respect of a loss which is too remote a consequence of the suspects 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 clv 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 Commercial and Gener al 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)