Commercial Law Autosaved Essay

Commercial law Attractive Alleluia STOIC 98361 Question 1 Issue Assignment James wants to sue the Happy Holiday Hotel for the loss of his stuff because of the theft of his belongings by someone of the stuff. Rule of law Under the rules governing exemption clauses, an exemption cannot be introduced into a contract after the contract has been made. Based on the Exemption Clauses in Common law, clauses cannot be introduced after the contract has been made that shown in Alley v Marlborough Court (1949). However, based to Spur ling vs. Bradshaw(SASS), there is an exception that says past dealing are not considered as part of contract.

It is called an exclusion clauses only if parties are involved have records of past dealings. An exception says that if the parties have had a history Of previous dealings, then the person to be bound by the exemption clause may be sufficiently aware of it at the time of making the latest contract. Application It is considered when guests check in to the hotel for the first time, they must know the hotel is not responsible for valuables loss. In case if these are not given to the front desk for safe keeping their stuff, but guests maybe do not now about the exemption clause.In this example in case of losses their belongings, guests have the right to sue the hotel because they stay in a hotel for a first time, which is the most important and also, because of responsibility of the hotel conducted. In James case, the hotel is not responsible for his losses as he is a frequent visitor to Singapore and have always stayed at this particular hotel. Therefore the low of past dealing does not justify James and it is not possible to sue the hotel for him.

We Will Write a Custom Essay about Commercial Law Autosaved Essay
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Conclusion Based on the discussion I would say that James was informed that the exclusion causes made by the hotel.It gives the information that he is a frequent visitor to Singapore always stayed in Happy Holiday Hotel. To sum up, he cannot hold the Happy Holiday Hotel for the loss of his belongings.

Question 2 If James can hold the hotel due to injuries he sustained at the Happy Holiday Hotel. Rule of law Using legal actions it is assumed in case to use tort of negligence which says that a person could be negligent for doing something he should not have done. There are three aspects such as a duty of care, breach of that duty and image which happened due to that breach.It can show whether the person is liable for getting him injured.

A duty of care says that it is possible to use the neighborhood principal that can be seen in Donahue v Stevenson(1 932). There are three clauses in a duty of care such as verifiability, proximity and Public Policy considerations. It is said that breach of that Duty can be determined whether it has been breached by the rule that says, the omission to do something that reasonable man would do, or doing something that a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

The example of such an accident can be seen in Bully v Birmingham Waterworks(1 865).In this case it is used “The reasonable Man test” which shows whenever a defendant falls below the standard of care. In the end, there are three aspects of damage that resulting from the breach. It includes remoteness and causation which should be established. According to Sayers v Harrow DC (1 958), the hotel can use contributory negligence to claim against the plaintiff. Application The hotel is responsible for the safety of the clients. It is considered that the actions of James were not unreasonable and the injuries were foreseeable and predictable.There was consequence of defendant negligence and not too remote.

However, damages of the plaintiff were reduced by 25% because of the negligence due to using of toilet bowl as a stand. Therefore, the fact that James got injured in the issue trying to climb out of the cubicle shows that the construction of the building was not provided in the case of force measure (unpredictable events) such as lock the door Conclusion I think it was foreseeable for James to expect this situation to be happened. It is possible that the plaintiff could sue the hotel for the damages but there is “however”.Due to his actions as he was trying to climb out by himself instead of calling the manager he reduced hid damages based in contributory negligence. Therefore the hotel is liable for his damages, but now the plaintiff could get 75% for his injure. However, the hotel can use contributory negligence as defense against James. Question 3 Issue: whether James can cancel the contract and return his money back Rule of Law: Under section 13 and 14 of the sale and goods act, it is considered that sales would be by description then the goods must meet the requirements of the buyer.

Under section 14, it is says if the goods are considered satisfactory quality and if they meet the requirements the person expect to see then the description of goods and price are reasonably for that person. Under section 13, in case of breach of warranty or condition, the plaintiff can take legal actions against the sales person for the damages of the Warranty. Application From the text above, it is assumed that the salesman take an advantage of James as he is not a professional in technology that is why the salesmen sold him an old version of a laptop with old software as well.The sales was not conducted under the description that James have told to the sales person. Based on Fit for Purpose section, the transaction does not fit the description as James have told the salesmen about his preferences. It is possible for James to take legal action due to the breach of warranty or condition.

Based in this, he can sue the salesmen for damages. Conclusion As the terms SIS and SIS were violated, it is assumed that James could sue he salesmen based on breach of warranty or condition.