Business Law for Marlborough Court Hotel -MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theBusiness Lawfor Marlborough Court Hotel. Answer: The issue on the given case is whether Nick can be bound by the contractual term mentioned in the docket and whether the hotel can be held liable for the damage suffered by Nick. Under the common law of contract the general presumption is that when a ticket or a docket has been handed to any person and such a person retains that ticket, then such person is bound by the terms given in the ticket. Further it is immaterial as to whether the person has read the terms or did not notice the terms since the use of the ticket is similar to the signing of the document.[1] In the case of Parker v The South Eastern Railway Co[2], the Court held that if the recipient of the ticket or docket knew that there was any writing on the ticket and that there were terms in that ticket then the recipient would be bound by the contract. In case the recipient did not know about the terms in the docket the court would consider whether a reasonable man would have known that such terms existed in the ticket. If it is so, then the recipient would be responsible and if it is not so, the court will again look at the general test of reasonable notice given in the ticket. In the case of Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel [1949][3], the court had given a detailed analysis in cases relating to tickets or dockets. The Court held that in order to exempt any liability of the hotel authorities there are a few things that needs to be satisfied. Firstly, it needs to be verified whether the notice or term given is a part of the contract between the hotel authorities and the recipient. Hence in order to exempt from the liability under the common law the contract needs to be proved very strictly[4]. One more vital element that needs to be proved is the intention to create legal relations or the intention of the parties to be legally bound. One way to prove that there was an intention from both the parties to be legally bound by the terms of the contract is by handling the recipient a legal notice specifying the terms and making him clear that the terms are a part of the contract. In another case Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970][5], the judge stated that when a ticket is issued and handed over to the recipient it acts an as offer by the company. When the recipient accepts the ticket he agrees to the terms mentioned in the ticket and hence after his acceptance it becomes a contract. While the ticket is handed the recipient has the opportunity to refuse or decline to accept the ticket or ask for money back. Relying on the Australian contract laws and the decisions in the above cases there are two things that need to be considered in the given case.[6] Firstly, the docket given to Nick was handed over to him and not generated through an auto generated machine. Hence when he was handed over the ticket and he accepted the ticket Secondly, Nick had previously visited and hotel and used the car parking services of the hotel. Hence it is quite likely that he would be well acquainted with the rules of car parking in the hotel. Keeping in mind these two conditions Nick will not able to claim for the damage suffered due to the loss of the car. As concluding remarks I would state that the hotel par parking service will be exempted from the liability to compensate for the loss suffered by Nick. References Carter, John W,Contract Law In Australia(Lexisnexis Orders/service, 2012) Ellinghaus, M. P,Australian Cases On Contract(Code Press, 2007) Gooley, John, Peter Radan and Ilija Vickovich,Principles Of Australian Contract Law(LexisNexis Butterworths, 2007) Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel(1949) 1 KB Parker v The South Eastern Railway Co(1877) 2 CPD Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd[1970] EWCA Civ