• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Law and Ethics in tourism

Extracts from this document...


To discuss about if Mary is right or not in this case it is necessary to analyze the Package Travel Regulations. According to Holiday Law: The law relating to Travel and tourism book (Grant, D., Mason, S. 2007) a contract is an agreement that the law will enforce. Before the contract is made the two parties must provide each other with something of value. There must be actually an agreement, if the parties have not come to an agreement then there will be no contract. In a contract the consideration by the client would be the payment for the holiday and the consideration by the tour operator would be the provision of the holiday itself. The consideration needs not actually be exchanged for the contract to be binding it is sufficient that each party has promised to provide the consideration in exchange for the other promise. Before 1992 there was no such requirement for package holiday contract and it was possible to make contracts without putting them into writing. ...read more.


According to regulation 9 all the information must be in writing and comprehensible to the consumer. In our case there is no writing contract between Mary and John. According to the "Law of Contract" book (Chandler, A., Brown I 2007) an offer may generally be revoked at any time before it has been accepted, provided that the revocation is communicated to the offeree. This is so even though the offeror has indicated that he will keep his offer open for a specified time. Where, however, the offeror has contracted to keep his offer open, revocation of that offer will amount to a breach of the contract of option. An offer cannot be revoked after acceptance. An unaccepted offer will be revoked when the offeror (or his agent) communicates to the offeree, in any manner his unequivocal intention to revoke the offer either expressly or impliedly. However, an offer may also be revoked without such a direct communication by the offeror to the offeree: * Where an offer is made to all the world, it may be revoked by giving the same notoriety to the revocation as to the offer. ...read more.


In principle there is no legal commitment until a contract has been concluded by the acceptance of an offer and, up to that point, either party is free to change his mind and withdraw from the negotiations by (Offord v Davies, 1862) In our case according to the above there was an offer but no acceptance, so John could any time legally and ethically withdraw his offer because the requested act of the acceptance was never completed by Mary. As a conclusion made by the above references Mary is not right in this case, because she refused John's offer, saying that the package price was too high therefore they did not have any agreement. So John was free to sell the package to anyone else. Additionally Mary was wrong insisting on saying that they already had a contract, because a contract has to be written. John in this case is right because he acted according to the regulations and laws. The only mistake he made in my opinion is that he should have informed Mary that he is planning to sell the package to Tommy. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Contract section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Contract essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    "The requirement of consideration is an unnecessary complication in the formation of contracts."

    4 star(s)

    And yet, it was held that the claimants had provided consideration in the sense that they provided a practical benefit to the defendants and so were entitled to the promise. Apparently, this situation differs from the cases of Hartley v Posonby [1857] and Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan CC [1925]

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Contract Law - Offer And Acceptance

    3 star(s)

    to sell on the behalf of the owner. The owner breach the contract. The commission of the auctioneer should be given and the plaintiff is entitled to the judgment of the court. Tender * Is not an offer, and the person request for tender doesn't bound to the higher tender

  1. Four ways in which a contract may be discharged.

    During the period between the agreed delivery date and the actual delivery date the market price of sugar at Basrah fell significantly. The late delivery was a breach of contract, and the plaintiff claimed the difference between the price he would have got had the delivery been made on time, and the price when the delivery was actually made.

  2. Contract Law

    Acceptance can be express or implied. Instantaneous Communication: Acceptance must be communicated a) General Rule When the mode of acceptance is instantaneous communication, the general rule of law is that the contract will be formed when acceptance of the offer is communicated to the offeror and that communication is received.

  1. Advising a Client : Contract Law

    v Wijsmuller B. V. (The Super Servant Two) (1990) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1 at p 8 where he states "A frustrating event must take place without blame or fault of the party seeking to rely on it." However, it is proposed to continue as if A can prove that the second clause of the contract is satisfied and can successfully argue that the contract is frustrated.

  2. What is the importance of implied terms to the contract of employment

    be treated as employees for some purposes and otherwise for other purposes. Military personnel cannot successfully sue the Crown for breach of contract43. Office holders include those in positions of authority in public or private institutions, such as policemen, board of governors of school, clergy, trade union leaders, etcetera.

  1. "It would be hard to over emphasise either the contribution made by implied terms ...

    The employees were not actually expected to do a 45 hour week it was just corporate because he was not contractually obliged to do so. Business efficacy was part of this decision. Business efficacy was first stated by Bowen LJ in "the Moorcock".

  2. Outline the basic rule of the law of contract regarding the effective revocation of ...

    is a reasonable way to accept an offer the acceptance is effective on posting The Household Fire v Grant. Thus Jane is in breach of contract. The situation could also be argued on a detrimental reliance part. It would be unfair if Jane was not in breach, since Louise did

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work