The main legal issue in this scenario is whether Elena can sue The Success Hotel for the loss of her property valuables on the very last day of her stay in the hotel.
The general principle of law relating to this issue is the exemption clauses being put up by the management of this hotel. This hotel has many signs that tells the management will not be responsible for the valuables lost if these items are not given to the front desk for safe-keeping, these are the exemption clauses made by the hotel which is a contractual stipulation that seeks to exclude the liability of one party to a contract.
This principle of law was established in the case of Olley v Malborough Court (1949). In this case, the court held that if the parties had a history of past dealings with the management or in this case, hotel, then the …show more content…
In this case, a friend of Donaghue bought her a drink which has a snail remainings and she sued the company for tort and negligence. It was questionable if Donaghue can sue the company for the breach of duty. The court held that any person could be liable for harm to another given certain conditions.
This principle of law was further endorsed in the case of Wells v Cooper (1958) where the court held that the plaintiff cannot sue the defendant for his injury as the defendant satisfied the standard of a reasonably skilled amateur carpenter. But in this case, it is the hotel’s duty to ensure safety for the customer.
Following this line of authority, it can be argued in this situation that Elena being the customer of this hotel, can sue the hotel for their negligence and not having much care for the customer’s in the hotel.
However as a counter argument, Elena was not supposed to act as so, she should have called for help instead of climbing out of the cubicle and attempt to help herself. But the hotel has not much
Overall, the situation in this scenario, she can sue the
The general principle of law relating to this issue is the exemption clauses being put up by the management of this hotel. This hotel has many signs that tells the management will not be responsible for the valuables lost if these items are not given to the front desk for safe-keeping, these are the exemption clauses made by the hotel which is a contractual stipulation that seeks to exclude the liability of one party to a contract.
This principle of law was established in the case of Olley v Malborough Court (1949). In this case, the court held that if the parties had a history of past dealings with the management or in this case, hotel, then the …show more content…
In this case, a friend of Donaghue bought her a drink which has a snail remainings and she sued the company for tort and negligence. It was questionable if Donaghue can sue the company for the breach of duty. The court held that any person could be liable for harm to another given certain conditions.
This principle of law was further endorsed in the case of Wells v Cooper (1958) where the court held that the plaintiff cannot sue the defendant for his injury as the defendant satisfied the standard of a reasonably skilled amateur carpenter. But in this case, it is the hotel’s duty to ensure safety for the customer.
Following this line of authority, it can be argued in this situation that Elena being the customer of this hotel, can sue the hotel for their negligence and not having much care for the customer’s in the hotel.
However as a counter argument, Elena was not supposed to act as so, she should have called for help instead of climbing out of the cubicle and attempt to help herself. But the hotel has not much
Overall, the situation in this scenario, she can sue the