In this case, the booking fee set by the hotel regulations will be valid if Mr Penn had already paid for the hotel booking services. It was better for him not to get involved in payment, as if he would not come to the hotel, the credit card would have not been charged by the hotel. The process of booking, for example, at booking.сom or other hotel booking services, includes the way of how things can be set, either by credit or without. In some cases, hotels may reserve the sum of money, some % from the booking sum, to cover their costs.
According to this hotel regulation, Mr. Penn will get 25% charge, for he booked the hotel room on 4th of March and in two days he cancelled it. It was before 19 days of the Easter Break that could last 3 days from 25 to 28 of March. However, the cancellation of the order within 21 days required 25% of charge to cover the expenses for the hotel booking.
Mr. Chance expected to get the refund for the last night in the hotel in the period of the Easter Break. However, he was refused. This decision of the hotel manager or receptionist was completely right, for according to regulations and business offer, the discount was offered only when ordering all 3 nights in a bulk. Otherwise, the 50% discount for the Easter Break during the holidays from 25-28th March can be not valid. The offer at this hotel for the time of the Easter Break was a good opportunity to stay away from the legal contract liabilities. However, the administration of the hotel did a good appropriate step to defend their expenses and stay away from the troubles, in case if some customers can cancel their booking. Mr. Chance did really cancel his booking, however, luckily, he did it within 21 days before the offer for Easter started in the period of 25-28 March. In this case, all he cared is just to pay 25% of the offer to the hotel.
The case of refund can be properly regulated by means of UCC § 2-609, where reasonable grounds of the repudiation of the contract was driven in case of the significant matters of the risk of the order cancellation. The hotel’s offer was used. However, the reasonable grounds for insecurity was not provided in this case, even for the risk of “insecurity of a reasonable time not exceeding 30 days,” that could take advantage of the contract repudiation. In comparison to Mr. Penn situation, the contract was not cancelled by Ms. Chance in a timely manner, therefore, this offer could be literally marked as used.
Indeed, it was Mott’s lack of care that led to the destroyment of Eve’s garage. However, according to their contract, Mott’s liabilities were just 500 pounds to cover any expenses. It would be better to provide insurance by the third-party company, in this case, to cover any expenses. However, Eve signed the contract, printed in small font, and it was the only document that regulated their cooperation. But Eve’s car was of the 3000 pounds of worth, so the expenses could be additionally regulated. The advice to Eve could be based on the following: it is Mott’s fault and lack of care that made the garage and the car destroyed by the fire, so these expenses of the car should be covered additionally. Eve signed the documented “Job Sheet”, and before signing Mott made her sure that is just to make her agreed to work; however, Eve did not read it, as it was printed in small font. For any documents should be printed well, so that Eve could read them. In this case, it can be proved that Eve did not have opportunity to read the document, for her physical abilities to see letters in the documents were limited. For example, it could be proved that Eve’s seeing abilities are limited up to wearing the glasses she forgot at home or something. In this case, Mott could read it aloud. In this case, there are high chances to prove that breach of contract was by Mott, who did not care about the car equipment and it, lead to the destruction by fire.
It was binding agreement that Mott and Eve signed before Mott was allowed to use Eve’s car and garage. However, this agreement was not properly regulated by the law issues. For instance, it was the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that regulated the right for the lawsuits between two parties, since their contract is signed and it is officially formulated. In such cases, since breach of contract occurred, one of the parties has no other way to form the lawsuit, claiming the breach of contract, or contractual promise, in the other words. In many cases, lawsuits are treated as civilly wrong actions, for they are based on the possibilities to cover actions that are prior restated and organized according to some cases of interest. However, the term of the lawsuit “refers to any proceeding by a party or parties against another in a court of law”
The case of Eve and Mott may be brought down to the lawsuit in a radically wrong meaning, for they signed a contract that is a legal agreement literally. In a literal meaning, according to Thelawdictionary.org., the lawsuit "a vernacular term for a suit, action, or cause instituted or depending between two private persons in the courts of law." that may cause formulating the legal liabilities between two parties. The lawsuit in this case would be regulated by the § 7-204 of the Duty of Care (Contractual Limitation of Warehouseman's Liability) from the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code).In addition, the § 7-203 of the UCC can be regulated by the Liability for Non-receipt or Misdescription, as Eve did not get the proper information about the limited liabilities of Mott. In this case, the damage to Eve can be considered major and material. For example, if Eve would like to cover expenses for the car only, she can hire a legal attorney that charges, for example, 600 dol. and pay to court for legal jurisdiction and paper work just 100-150 dol. If the car if of 3000 pounds worth, she can claim at least 5-10 th. pounds to cover material and morally significant expenses.
Fred did not tell Sid about another opportunity that will allow him to use the antique tracking engine “Daisy” in the new comedy film. Therefore, Sid fell behind until October to let it be repaired on time. In June, “Daisy” was expected to be used in a show in the North England to promoted Fred’s book; however, some expenses were set in order to repair it for the further use. It was 3000 pounds worth to get the engine repaired, and Fred agreed to proceed with work so that to bring it to life in the normal conditions.
Sid’s liabilities to Fred are limited, for in their contract, there was no strictly set date, until when the engine should be repaired. The most important Fred’s mistake was that he did not inform Sid about the urgent need to repair “Daisy” to provide its use in the new comedy movie. If Sid was priory informed about this fact, he could be in hurry to repair Daisy faster. In any case, still there are some chances to prove that Sid has liabilities, for it is unknown that the engine of “Daisy” was really of 3000 pounds of worth, or Sid just used this chance in order to bring it back to life according his taste for money. Sid’s liabilities of repairing are high, for if he started in June, he could complete it until October, but he did not complete this task, although he promised to complete the engineering task in a timely manner.
In this case, the liabilities of this engineer would be regulated by § 7-602 of the Attachment of Goods Covered by a Negotiable Document, for these liabilities were negotiable from the beginning, however, the overall expenses could be covered only in case, if the promises could be kept accordingly. In overall, these are damages that can be covered minimally, for the damage for the customer was minor. These were not material breach of contract that could be very well signed, but Sid was not informed about the changes, so he expected the work to be completed later that could happen later since the contract was allowed to be processed by the legal parties. In overview, this situation can be distinguished as affordably new for the considerations that happened above. UCC is the document that can properly regulated all liabilities that can happen to be in use between two parties. Sid was not informed that he should repair the machine urgently so that it can be used to promote some book of the author. However, he agreed to process the order for repairmen in a timely manner. Therefore, the breach of contract was not material, but minor.
In such cases, there is a risk for breach a contract that was not properly regulated, only when considering all liabilities.
Earn 10% from every order!
Earn money today! Refer our service to your friends