Introduction
The hospitality laws govern many aspects of the hotel, restaurant, bar, and other entertainment spots that with food service, travel and accommodation facilities. The hospitality laws allow clients to lodge complaints when there is a breach of trust in the provision of services as stipulated by the contacts that the customer and the service provider signs (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2014). The essence of such contracts is to safeguard the interest of the client and provide a legal framework that they can engage attorneys when the terms of the contract are not met. This paper analyzes a case where a guest was denied access to a facility after signing the contract for the services.
The hospitality laws stipulate the duties of an innkeeper in the provision of services to guests at any particular time. An innkeeper has the responsibility to deal safely with the property of the guests. Secondly, they are required to provide refreshments, accommodation and ensure that the transportation of their guests is safe (Ling, 2015). The case of Constantine v Imperial Hotel Ltd provides a real situation where an innkeeper failed to carry out their duty to provide accommodation and subsequently led to a lawsuit against the organization.
In 1943, a professional cricketer from West Indies, Learie Constantine, traveled to England with his family to play for his Dominion team against a selected English side at the Lord’s in London. On arrival, the cricketer checked into the Imperial Hotel with his family. They received a warm reception and an assurance that they will be treated with the utmost respect. However, they were informed by the management that they could only stay for a night at the hotel. The hotel informed them that they had gotten complaints that some guests did not approve of their presence at the facility (Ling, 2015). The professional cricketer and his family were subsequently treated as undeserving. The innkeeper refused to accommodate the player on the account of his color. The hotel offered to book him in another lodge run by the company. Constantine failed a petition as he considered this a breach of trust given that the hotel had confirmed his reservation. He said that it was against the British common law for the hotel to refuse to offer accommodation though there were vacant rooms at the facility (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2014). In his petition to the British court, Constantine argued that the hotel had breached implied terms of the contract and violated common law principle that an innkeeper cannot refuse to accommodate a guest, unless there is a just cause for their refusal.
Facts
Constantine was denied accommodation at the hotel though there were rooms and furthermore he had made the reservations before his travel. The denial of accommodation was not based on any just cause as required by the law but on his color (Ling, 2015). The hotel breached implied terms of the contract and the common law principles that govern the duties of the innkeeper. When the hotel transferred the player to another facility, they failed to discharge a fundamental duty as they have no authority to transfer a guest to another lodge, motel or accommodation facility.
Judgment
The court held that the hotel violated Constantine’s right to accommodation. The court acknowledged that it was the duty of the innkeeper to provide accommodation. It rejected the hotel’s submission that it had fulfilled that duty when it transferred the guest to another lodge (Ling, 2015). The court concluded that the violation of the particular was enough to offer compensation as a remedy. The court awarded a sum of five guineas for the compensation for the violation.
My perspective
The primary argument in the case was the duty of an innkeeper as stipulated by the British Common Law and the issue of discrimination based on color. The innkeeper had not anticipated complaints from other guests but had a duty to protect all guests who made reservations at the facility (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2014). Constantine was denied accommodation because of his color and not because the facility could not meet this requirement. Mr. Constantine had a right to accommodation, and the hotel should not have discriminated against him, regardless of the complaints that came from other guests. The innkeeper had a duty to provide room to the guest apart from other duties. The case presents a classical example of how innkeeper found themselves at the center of the social issues like racial discrimination at the time. While it suffices to note that the situation has changed since, hotels must ensure that they stick to the terms of contract and give the best of service to all guests, regardless of color, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2014). The British common law explicitly states that all the parties have duties that they must fulfill and when they fail to fulfill it, any of the parties can seek legal redress for the violation.
Conclusion
Hospitality laws are supposed to enhance the relationship between the guests and the innkeeper. The laws require those running the industry to follow strict standards and code of conduct for the benefit of the guests. The Constantine case proves that when one of the parties fail to meet the expected conduct, they can be liable for civil charges. The essence is that both the players and the guests should strive to honor the terms of contract.
References
Benavides-Velasco, C. A., Quintana-García, C., & Marchante-Lara, M. (2014). Total quality
management, corporate social responsibility and performance in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol.41, pp.77-87. London: Taylor & Francis
Ling, R. (2015). The Arch of Constantine: inspired by the Divine. By Iain Ferris. 248mm. Pp
160, 61 b&w ills, 39 col pls. Amberley Publishing, Stroud, 2013. ISBN 9781445601298. £ 18.99 (Pbk). The Antiquaries Journal, Vol.95, pp.383-384. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
