• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13

Business Law

Extracts from this document...


Business law Introduction; Uxbridge Mill House Hotel is a luxury hotel that offers its customer more than just 'Bed & Breakfast'. The varieties of services that they offer are Jacuzzi, Gym, and Swimming pool with fitness centre. Angelina is furious about her jewellery; Angelina and brad booked in for 2 nights after being told the price per night of the room and the free facilities that would be provided. Brad entered into a contract of Supply of Services act 1982 as he signed a contract. After unpacking their language and refreshing up they then went out for a walk. When they got back Angelina realized that her jewellery was missing. When she went downstairs to complain to the manager, she then referred Angelina to a notice, which is there on the inside of every bedroom door of the hotel. It said "All personal property of significant value should be handed into reception to be kept in the hotel safe. The Uxbridge Mill House Hotel can accept no liability for loss of such property unless this has been done". Both Brad and Angelina admitted that they saw the notice but did not bother to read it since they thought it was about fire drills. In this case, in brief, the issue now is 'who actually is responsible for Angelina's lost jewellery'. Is Angelina herself responsible or is it Uxbridge Mill House Hotel. There are two cases that will be formed and heard in county courts. First, Angelina and Brad would ask for compensation from UMHH and the second UMHH will defend its stance. According to (Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel, 1949), this case suggests that anything that happens after the contract papers are signed is not a part of the contract. The representation can only be binding where it was made at the time contract was formed. It was Angelina and Brad's first visit to the hotel, the hotel should have informed them about the notice prior to the contract. ...read more.


When the incident happened, it had already been two months more than the warranty period. So certainly neither Mill House fitness centre nor Pracash can accuse Pro-fit under any circumstance. Now, the issue remains that whether it is a fault of the Uxbridge Mill House fitness centre or was it negligence on Pracash's side as well as whether Pracash is eligible for the compensation for his back injury. It is clearly visible in the case given that Pracash's injury was caused because of the faulty equipment, so Pracash is likely to sue Uxbridge Mill House fitness centre, under 'Duty of Care' that they did not carry out their services with reasonable care or he can sue Mr. Dean, the duty manager, under tort as he is acting in the course of his employment duties and not on a frolic on his own. To behave negligently is to be careless which means the damages caused by negligent conduct is generally actionable irrespective of the kind of activity out of which the damage arose. In order to win the case in tort Pracash must prove fault. According to the law of tort subsection the tort of negligence is said to consist of three essential elements. Firstly, a 'duty of care' that Uxbridge Mill House fitness centre failed to comply by leaving them unattended. Secondly, a 'breach of that duty' by not extending the warranty of their equipment and lastly, the damage to the plaintiff caused by that breach of duty which in this case, the plaintiff, Pracash suffered back injury. In light of a past case of 'Davis Contracters v Fareham UDC 1976 where the Lord Redcliffe gave judgement that a reasonable duty of care is must. As well as there was a breach under 'Health and Safety Act of 1974' that says 'all the businesses are supposed to take safety minimum precautions'. Another issue which arises is that the application form stated right at the bottom in small print, "Whilst the equipment is maintained to ...read more.


Shadwell (1860) 9 C.B.N.S. 159. > ^ Austotel v. Franklins (1989) 16 NSWLR 582 > ^ e.g. P.S. Atiyah, 'Consideration: A Restatement' in Essays on Contract (1986) p.195, Oxford University Press > ^ Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. [1947] KB 130 > ^ Balfour v. Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 > ^ Merritt v. Merritt [1970] 2 All ER 760; [1970] 1 WLR 1211; CA > ^ in Australia it is known as the Sales of Goods Act in most states, and in Victoria the Goods Act 1958 > ^ L'Estrange v. Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394 > ^ Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805 > ^ Balmain New Ferry Company Ltd v. Robertson (1906) 4 CLR 379 > ^ Fry v. Barnes (1953) 2 D.L.R. 817 (B.C.S.C) > ^ Hillas and Co. Ltd. v. Arcos Ltd. (1932) 147 LT 503 > ^ Whitlock v. Brew (1968) 118 CLR 445 > ^ Three Rivers Trading Co., Ltd. v. Gwinear & District Farmers, Ltd. (1967) 111 Sol. J. 831 > ^ Martin, E [ed] & Law, J [ed], Oxford Dictionary of Law, ed6 (2006, London:OUP). > Arcos LTD V Ronassen > Pepper V Webb 1969 > Cerberus software LTD V Rowley 2001 > British Broadcasting corporation V beckett 1983 > Gallagher V Dorman Long(1947) 2 ALL E.R 38; 177 L.T 143, C.A > Hopwood V Rolls Royce(1947) 176 L.T 514, C.A > General cleaning contractors V Christmas(1952) 2 ALL E.R 1110;(1953) A.C. 180 H.L. > Pead V Furness Withy(1956) 2 Lloyd's Rep. 149, slade J. > Branett V Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management committee(1968). > > Statutes > SGA 1979, ss 13-15 see, > EAR 1966 Part IX; Section 86; > EAR 1966 Part IX; section 86; subsection 3; > EAR 1966 Part IX; section 91; subsection 5; > EAR 1966 Part IX; section 93; subsection 2A&B; > EAR 1966 Part X; Chapter 1; Section 98; subsection 2B; ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Commercial Law 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 University Degree Commercial Law essays

  1. Corporations in law. A corporation under Company law or corporate law is specifically ...

    legal entity, a company or corporation can only act through human agents that compose it. As a result, there are two main ways through which a company becomes liable in company or corporate law to wit: through direct liability (for direct infringement)

  2. Introduction to Commercial Law. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of resolving a civil ...

    This means that even the party that is 'at fault,' can withdraw if they are not happy with where the mediation process is headed. No decision can be formed if either one party does not agree to the terms, thus a resolution may not be reached.

  1. Company Law, s.33 CA '06

    Consequentially a debt due to the company by one of its members may have been enforced as a speciality debt with a limitation period of 12 years, whereas a debt due to a member from the company was only afforded a limitation of 6 years 11.

  2. Limited liability

    usually invest their money in their firm and do not have interest in providing capital to other companies28. Besides, the possibility of contracting round limited liability by large lenders, which is greater than in the case of large companies, will have the effect of increasing transaction costs.

  1. sale of goods act 1979

    of the Act. It is of convenience that the argument of the goods being unmerchantable at the time of delivery and that the plaintiffs were of entitlement to discard as useless to them, since 1893 the implied term of merchantable quality has been governed by the statute of Sale Of Goods Act.

  2. To what extent is the rule contained in the Salomon v. Salomon & Co. ...

    The House of Lords ruling on Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd set the standard against which future cases would be judged. Lord Halsbury L.C. made it clear that it was not the courts role to interpret the Companies Act 1862, "The sole guide must be the statute itself"(6)

  1. Both the common law and statute make it too easy for buyers to reject ...

    (Goldring, Maher, McKeough, & Pearson, 1998) On the other hand, even if buyers can reject the goods, they should require their money back provided they complain within "a reasonable time" (usually a short period). When a buyer is entitled to reject the goods, he must tell the retailer immediately.

  2. Consumers and the Law

    The company Mothercare may have not been negligent under the Act, but their product was defective under Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The court agreed to the expert witness that a prudent manufacturer would have accepted the presence of risk during that period of time.

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