Introduction
There are many contracts between different people regarding different contexts, which range from implied to express contracts. These are agreements between two parties regarding a specific action which are based on legal obligations thus enforceable by law. Contacts are based on several principles which should be satisfied by all the parties to ensure it passes as a legal contract. The absence of any of these elements can lead to the disqualification of the credibility of the contract thus making it illegal.
The benefit of a contract is to ensure all the parties are willing and aware of the basics thus acquisition of their consent. Breach of this contract is, therefore, enforceable and one is liable to damages which can be either tangible or not. This case involves the circumstances and nature of the misfortunes, which occurred to Nadia and the manner in which these were handled. A contract should have an offer which must be acceptable willingly lack of which dismisses it. Nadia went to the hotel with the belief that her health, car and belongings would be safe, which did not happen. To ensure one justifies their stand and Nadia can be repaid for the damages caused, to her requires the identification of the viability of the contract made between her and the hotel.
The law of contracts requires an offer to be offered by one party and the other party accepts it. Acceptance is conducted after consideration of the factors relating to the law and the meetings of the minds of the two parties. This can lead to the formation of an implied or express contract, which requires different reactions from the accepter. Nadia’s case can be identified as implied as it involved her actions, which indicated with the agreements of the case without saying it expressly.
A contract should also have a consideration which is expected to be valuable and transferrable from one party to another. This is payment for the conduct of the contract which is offered by the promisor with the expectation that the contract will be met. Nadia had booked the hotel which indicates the exchange of cash to the hotel as payment for her stay in the hotel. This consideration was also an assurance of her safety and that of her belongings as it is expected with hotel bookings. The parties in this case had an intention for the contract made to bind them legally as it was a commercial agreement making it enforceable. This is another element of contract law, which is required to satisfy the viability of the contract.
The case involved a hotel and Nadia who is a group up thus have the contractual ability to make a contract. A hotel acquires its contractual ability from its business missions which can also be analyzed as legal. The legality of this contract and the actions behind it makes it abiding in law thus it is possible to establish the role and credibility of each party in the contract. Equity involves ensuring justice is served to all and that the contract does not deprive any party of their rights. The hotel indicated that their defense is based on the notes indicated within the parking garage, hotel and rooms which reduced any liability accosted to them. The car park had a notice warning guests of parking at their own risk while the booking contract had a similar clause.
These clauses removed any liability from the hotel when and if possessions or cars are vandalized. Removing any liability from the hotel when the guests are living in it can be analyzed as an indication of inequality as hotel bookers expect security. Such a clause can therefore be an indication in the contract which was signed by Nadia.
Food poisoning is a serious allegation which Nadia charged the hotel with after eating their food. To this accusation the hotel had the defense that she had signed a contract, which restricted them from any liability after their customers were harmed. This can be identified as an injustice clause as hotels are expected to retain high hygiene to ensure the customers remain healthy. Nadia had no knowledge of the condition of the food as it is an implied assumption that all hotel foods are quality and fit for consumption. Such inequality should be removed from the contract to ensure that all the parties remain liable for their actions thus increasing the quality of foods served.
Business entities have different realities which may differ from the law due to the conditions in, which they are applied. The social relation among parties can also have an effect on this law as people are expected to form strong relations with time. Nadia had visited the hotel severally, which increases her faith in the security and quality of services offered by the hotel. During these visits she had not witnessed any insecurity issues, which raise questions on the situations affecting her this time. The business entity of a hotel can also be analyzed as one, which should ensure the security and quality of their products as it is service oriented. People who have cars and spend their nights in such hotels also expect a high level of security to guard their cars in cases of theft. This reduces the credibility of the claims and defenses raised by the hotel.
Example of a case
Board of trustee of port vs Pioneer Engineer and Anr
Dated: 14 June 2006
Court: Bombay high court
Facts: Construction of the superstructure of the transit shed measuring
Construction of a retaining wall to support the platform
Electrical works for transit shed and the customs office
Construction of a custom in office in North East corner with sanitary, water and sewerage system
Ruling: The award made by the court and appellant was directed to pay an interest to respondent 1 at a rate of 12% on principle amount as adjudicated by the award and confirmed by the judgment from date of decree till final payment.
Reasoning: The ruling was based on breach of contract laid on issue of the award.
Conclusion
Breach of any contract can be remedied through damages or specific performance. Damages involve paying monetary compensation to replace the damages caused, which is the most appropriate remedy for Nadia. There are several rules which can be used to analyze this case. The hotel is liable for most of the damages caused to Nadia although this should be analyzed on a more specific basis. It is the responsibility of any hotel to ensure the health and quality of their food products. This is also a requirement of the health and safety law thus no clause should be claimed to stand which reduces such liability. This indicates that they should be liable for the illness suffered by Nadia from food poisoning. Parking a car outside or within the hotel can be a risky decision as the external insecurity is not the responsibility of the hotel. The hotel had also indicated that owners are taking a risk by parking there thus Nadia should have taken extra precaution before parking. This indicates that the hotel is responsible for the harm caused to her car. A hotel is a safe place to leave ones belongings after booking as one might be unable to move with them around. The hotel has, however, indicated that they are liable for part of the possession lost during such cases thus should pay Nadia this amount. Calculation of such amount can be based on the capability of the hotel and it indicates they are willing to take some responsibility.
Bibliography
DiMatteo, Larry A. Commercial Contract Law: Transatlantic Perspectives. , 2013. Print.
Fouche, M A. Legal Principles of Contracts and Commercial Law. Durban: LexisNexis, 2004. Print.
Hall, Kermit L. The Oxford Companion to American Law. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2006. Internet resource.
Hillman, Robert A. Principles of Contract Law. St. Paul, MN: West, 2009. Print.
Paterson, Jeannie M, Andrew Robertson, and Arlen Duke. Principles of Contract Law. Rozelle, N.S.W: Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia, 2011. Print.
Peng, Mike W. Global Business. Mason, OH: South Western Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.
Review of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (cisg): 2005-2006. München: Sellier, 2007. Print.
Waddams, S M. Principle and Policy in Contract Law: Competing or Complementary Concepts?Toronto: Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, 2010. Print.
