Elena is a frequent traveler to Singapore and she usually stays at The Success Hotel when she is here. Many signs are being put up in the hotel stating that they will not be responsible for the loss of items if they are not entrusted to the front desk to be taken care of.
In the case of Bass Anne Hendricks v Shangri-La Hotel Ltd (2011), Bass, the plaintiff, claimed to have lost her gold and diamond ring during her stay at Shangri-La Hotel and therefore, the defendant is liable for the loss of her items. Searches were conducted in the hotel and internal meetings were also held but to no avail. Plaintiff then decided to lodge a police report and sue the hotel for negligence. But as the plaintiff was unable to prove that her valuables were indeed …show more content…
When she was done, she realized that she got trapped in the cubicle and it was impossible to get out as the door handle came off. So she tried to escape by climbing on the toilet seat and then the toilet roll holder. She suffered injuries on her head and was send to the hospital for outpatient treatment.
In the case of Sayers v Harlow UDC (1958) 1 WLR 623, the claimant paid for the use of public toilet but was trapped as the door did not have a handle. So, like what Elena did, she attempted to first climb on the toilet bowl and then the toilet roll holder which gave way and caused injuries. The results of the injuries were natural and probably caused by the defendant’s negligence and therefore, the damages would be 25% less as it was the claimant’s carelessness for relying on the toilet roll holder for support as it is not built to withstand the weight of a human being.
Under the tort of negligence, acts of claimant, it is required for the hotel to adhere reasonable care to the structures of the facilities in the hotel, therefore the door handle should be working well or fixed for the guests to use. In this case whereby the cause of the whole incident was because of the door handle, the hotel should claim more responsibilities on the …show more content…
Similarly in October 2013, Karen purchased a charging dock for her mobile phone. She demanded for an exchange after she found out that there was a defect within seven days. They exchanged for another one for her but it was still defective. Karen then asked for a refund but was rejected by the manufacturer. The manufacturer offered her an option to exchange the product for another product of a lower value. Karen then reported to CASE.
The Company breached – CPFTA Section 12A Lemon Law – Defective Goods. Karen was then given a full refund. Lemon law is the enhanced version of Sales of goods act and in Elena’s case; it is under the Satisfactory Quality. It is the seller’s duty to make sure that the goods that are sold by them are of satisfactory quality under section 14(2). Buyers can only apply this when the contract is made. The aspects of quality may include appearance of goods, safety and in Elena’s case, durability of
In the case of Bass Anne Hendricks v Shangri-La Hotel Ltd (2011), Bass, the plaintiff, claimed to have lost her gold and diamond ring during her stay at Shangri-La Hotel and therefore, the defendant is liable for the loss of her items. Searches were conducted in the hotel and internal meetings were also held but to no avail. Plaintiff then decided to lodge a police report and sue the hotel for negligence. But as the plaintiff was unable to prove that her valuables were indeed …show more content…
When she was done, she realized that she got trapped in the cubicle and it was impossible to get out as the door handle came off. So she tried to escape by climbing on the toilet seat and then the toilet roll holder. She suffered injuries on her head and was send to the hospital for outpatient treatment.
In the case of Sayers v Harlow UDC (1958) 1 WLR 623, the claimant paid for the use of public toilet but was trapped as the door did not have a handle. So, like what Elena did, she attempted to first climb on the toilet bowl and then the toilet roll holder which gave way and caused injuries. The results of the injuries were natural and probably caused by the defendant’s negligence and therefore, the damages would be 25% less as it was the claimant’s carelessness for relying on the toilet roll holder for support as it is not built to withstand the weight of a human being.
Under the tort of negligence, acts of claimant, it is required for the hotel to adhere reasonable care to the structures of the facilities in the hotel, therefore the door handle should be working well or fixed for the guests to use. In this case whereby the cause of the whole incident was because of the door handle, the hotel should claim more responsibilities on the …show more content…
Similarly in October 2013, Karen purchased a charging dock for her mobile phone. She demanded for an exchange after she found out that there was a defect within seven days. They exchanged for another one for her but it was still defective. Karen then asked for a refund but was rejected by the manufacturer. The manufacturer offered her an option to exchange the product for another product of a lower value. Karen then reported to CASE.
The Company breached – CPFTA Section 12A Lemon Law – Defective Goods. Karen was then given a full refund. Lemon law is the enhanced version of Sales of goods act and in Elena’s case; it is under the Satisfactory Quality. It is the seller’s duty to make sure that the goods that are sold by them are of satisfactory quality under section 14(2). Buyers can only apply this when the contract is made. The aspects of quality may include appearance of goods, safety and in Elena’s case, durability of