This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Punjabi GCSE (AQA) - Need urgent Help
- Is there anyone commuting to University of Reading
- I have a lot OF A-level and GCSE Maths and Further Maths resources. Who's Interested?
- Igcse help
- History coursework/ suffrage movement
- OCR Computer Science 2023
- Dental Nurse Zoom OSCE
- MSc Public Policy UCL vs MSc Regulation LSE vs MA Public Policy KCL
- KPMG audit apprenticeships 2024
- Classical Civilisation Notes
- How to get an A* in Economics?
- Dropping out
- GCSE 2023 Biology Triple AQA Higher Exam
- Economic's AS + A2 Notes (ALL BOARDS)
- Higher Modern Studies
- Edexcel IGCSE - ICT Practical Paper
- As biology aqa paper 1
- Nat 5 english folio help!!!
- Unit 19: Study Skills Portfolio Building
- city university or queen mary?
Some help please!
This is the question for a piece of legal research coursework that i have to redo.
Sarah and Julie are dance students, they decide to treat themselves to a weekend break together in Brighton. They book the hotel and Sarah pays using her credit card, Julie pays her back by cheque. The hotel brochure describes the hotel accommodation as luxurious with spacious rooms, exellent cuisine and superb service.
On arriving at the hotel, Julie trips over luggage carelelly left in a doorway and sprains her ankle. She has, in fact, damaged it severely and a year later has to have surgery to repair the damage.
The hotel is tatty, the rooms are small and the food rather dull. The waiters are surly and the room service never arrives. On their final evening, they d onot arrive back at their hotel until 3:00am. They are unable to enter the hotel as the front door, to which they were given a key, is bolted. They sleep on the steps untill the door in unlocked at 6:00am.
I know im looking at tort for the second parargraph. would contract law apply for the last one? Trade descriptions act? and what is the relevence of the credit card and the cheque in the first paragraph. any help would be greatly appreciated!
Sarah and Julie are dance students, they decide to treat themselves to a weekend break together in Brighton. They book the hotel and Sarah pays using her credit card, Julie pays her back by cheque. The hotel brochure describes the hotel accommodation as luxurious with spacious rooms, exellent cuisine and superb service.
On arriving at the hotel, Julie trips over luggage carelelly left in a doorway and sprains her ankle. She has, in fact, damaged it severely and a year later has to have surgery to repair the damage.
The hotel is tatty, the rooms are small and the food rather dull. The waiters are surly and the room service never arrives. On their final evening, they d onot arrive back at their hotel until 3:00am. They are unable to enter the hotel as the front door, to which they were given a key, is bolted. They sleep on the steps untill the door in unlocked at 6:00am.
I know im looking at tort for the second parargraph. would contract law apply for the last one? Trade descriptions act? and what is the relevence of the credit card and the cheque in the first paragraph. any help would be greatly appreciated!
Well... maybe her cheque hadn't cleared by the end of the weekend so she'd be in a better position to demand her money back? I don't know 
She wanted the hotel for relaxation I'm guessing as thats usually what people want a holiday for. There is a case invloving a guy booking a skiing holiday and the hotel not being what it was describes as, It's something like Jarvis v Swan Holiday tours. Here he could claim back damages because the purpose of the contract for the hotel room was rest and relaxation. look up that case (i'm sure thats right but I don't have any of my text books with me!) and it should help you. But it would come under contract.
Its a rather poorly worded question - and I have to point out that we shouldn't be doing people's work for them. If people need help with a specific point then that's fair enough, the same applies when people have made a decent stab at a question.
I've been guilty of trying to prove my own knowledge of undergraduate law before, but I'm trying to restrain myself.
I've been guilty of trying to prove my own knowledge of undergraduate law before, but I'm trying to restrain myself.
jurisprudence
Its a rather poorly worded question - and I have to point out that we shouldn't be doing people's work for them. If people need help with a specific point then that's fair enough, the same applies when people have made a decent stab at a question.
I've been guilty of trying to prove my own knowledge of undergraduate law before, but I'm trying to restrain myself.
I've been guilty of trying to prove my own knowledge of undergraduate law before, but I'm trying to restrain myself.
In your opinion, of course.
jurisprudence
Its a rather poorly worded question - and I have to point out that we shouldn't be doing people's work for them. If people need help with a specific point then that's fair enough, the same applies when people have made a decent stab at a question.
I've been guilty of trying to prove my own knowledge of undergraduate law before, but I'm trying to restrain myself.
I've been guilty of trying to prove my own knowledge of undergraduate law before, but I'm trying to restrain myself.
i dont want people to do the work for me, i just wanted to know that i was going in the right direction with it, that was all. and yes, it is a poorly worded question i think.
jurisprudence
Lauren18: Yes, 'we should not' points to it being an opinion, but just because I include 'we' does not mean that I imply that its an opinion that everyone here holds... Therefore it is, as you say, (just) my opinion - I didn't claim to speak for other people here if that's what lies behind your reply.
I suggest that if you intend to answer people's questions in future you give defamation a wide berth - you'll need to be able to draw a finer distinction between fact and opinion.
On a broader note, answering people's questions outright doesn't do them any favours.
I suggest that if you intend to answer people's questions in future you give defamation a wide berth - you'll need to be able to draw a finer distinction between fact and opinion.
On a broader note, answering people's questions outright doesn't do them any favours.
Thanks for your suggestions, I'll err... bear them in mind... maybe.
just a thought and im a bit rusty but you may want to look at the applicability or otherwise of any statutory limitation periods for actions regarding the ankle. Can her lack of action mean her acceptance of this state of affairs. Sorry if I'm complicating the picture needlessly but these are issues I'd want clarification on if my ankle was broken!!
chriswhit
just a thought and im a bit rusty but you may want to look at the applicability or otherwise of any statutory limitation periods for actions regarding the ankle. Can her lack of action mean her acceptance of this state of affairs. Sorry if I'm complicating the picture needlessly but these are issues I'd want clarification on if my ankle was broken!!
i looked at the limitation act, and the time limit is 6 years.
Related discussions
- Punjabi GCSE (AQA) - Need urgent Help
- Is there anyone commuting to University of Reading
- I have a lot OF A-level and GCSE Maths and Further Maths resources. Who's Interested?
- Igcse help
- History coursework/ suffrage movement
- OCR Computer Science 2023
- Dental Nurse Zoom OSCE
- MSc Public Policy UCL vs MSc Regulation LSE vs MA Public Policy KCL
- KPMG audit apprenticeships 2024
- Classical Civilisation Notes
- How to get an A* in Economics?
- Dropping out
- GCSE 2023 Biology Triple AQA Higher Exam
- Economic's AS + A2 Notes (ALL BOARDS)
- Higher Modern Studies
- Edexcel IGCSE - ICT Practical Paper
- As biology aqa paper 1
- Nat 5 english folio help!!!
- Unit 19: Study Skills Portfolio Building
- city university or queen mary?
