1.Whether he can hold the Portsear Hotel for the loss of his property under the common law.
2.If he can hold the Portsear Hotel wholly responsible for the injuries he sustained at the Hotel.
3.Whether it is possible to prevent Donald’s company from directly competing with Henry’s business interests.
The main issue of this case is to determine whether Henri can hold the hotel liable for the loss of his property or not.
The subject matter of this case is based on the principle and exception of exclusion rule under the contract law. According to the common law, the parties to a contract have certain rights against each other. An exclusion clause helps to restrict certain rights of the parties (Jones, 2016). However, there are certain rules specified in this case. According to this, there are three elements for the application of this clause such as the clause has been incorporated in the contract, the provisions of the clause was clear and the contracting party has knowledge of it and none of the clause is adhered to the Unfair Contract Terms Act.
According to the common rule of contract, if any party make any breach regarding the contractual obligation, the other party may bring action against him (McKendrick, 2014). However, if any misrepresentation has been done by one party, the exclusion clause will not apply. It has been observed in Curtis V Chemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 805 that the party against whom exclusion clause has been bought must have certain knowledge about the contractual terms and the other party is under the obligation to clarify the provision of the terms. However, no action can be bought if the party has no knowledge regarding the same. Further, in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd. (1971) 1 All ER 686, it has been held that until the party to a contract does not serve notice regarding the contractual terms and clarify the same, the said term could not be included under the contract. Therefore, under the exclusion clause, the authority should have to clarify to all the parties regarding the terms and conditions of the exclusion clause; otherwise such plea could not be accepted.
In this case, it has been observed that Henry was staying at a hotel and in his room there were many signs. According to the hotel authority, there is a sign that reads that the hotel authority will not be liable if any valuable things of the customer misplaced. However, no steps have been taken by the hotel authority to bring this term in the notice of Henri. It has been observed that some belongings of Henri have been lost and on asking about that, the hotel authority has mentioned about the exclusion clause. According to the settled rule of exclusion clause, the term has not been incorporated in the contract. Further, the terms are unfair and against the law, as the hotel authority should be careful for the security of the customers and in this case, the alleged hotel has failed to take such action.
Conclusion:
Therefore, it can be stated that exclusion clause will not be applied here and Henri can hold the hotel liable for the loss of his property.
The main issue of this case is to determine whether Henri can hold the hotel liable for his head injury or not.
The main subject matter of the case is based on the rules of negligence and contributory negligence. According to the common rule of law, every person has an obligation to act with due care and diligence. However, in case they have failed to act prudently, his action will be regarded as negligence. Under the Law of Torts, it has been mentioned that if any harm has been incurred by the party due to the carelessness of others, the affected party may bring action for the harm against the other party (Patten & Saunders, 2018). Considering the formation of negligence, it can be stated that there are three elements of negligence such as duty of care, breach made against such duty and causation. It is the legal liability of a person to take necessary care of others with the purpose to avoid any harm. If any person has failed to take necessary care, he may face legal penalties. This principle of duty of care has been established in the historical case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 532. Further, in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1935) UKPC 62, it has been stated that the harm should be reasonably foreseeable and they should be fair and just.
However, there are certain exceptions to the common rule of negligence. According to this, if any harm has been caused to a person who has the knowledge that such action can caused injury to him and he has done the action with this knowledge, he will partially be held liable for the negligence (Goudkamp, 2017). This principle has been established in Butterfield v Forrester [1809].
In this case, it has been found that after using the washroom, Henry found him locked down and the door had not been opened after many tries. This is the duty of the hotel authority to keep close vigil over these issues and they have failed to take proper care. However, Henry is capable enough to understand that any action done by him at that stage could lead to the injury and having such knowledge; he had done the act and sustained injury. Therefore, he has certain contributions in the injury.
Conclusion:
Therefore, it can be stated that Henry could not held the hotel fully liable for the injury sustained by him.
The main issue of the case is to determine whether Henry can prevent Donald’s company for competing him directly or not.
The main subject matter of the case is based on the principle of restrictive covenant and duty of fidelity under the employment contract. According to the principle of restrictive covenant, there is certain information in a company that is required to be confidential and no one is allowed to pass that information even after terminated from the job (Bishara, Martin & Thomas, 2015). Further, before appoint an employee; an employment contract has been made between the employer and the employee. It is the duty of the employee to act according to the rules of that contract. Further, the employee has a duty of fidelity to act according to the terms of the contract and maintain that after the completion of his job. According to the principle of duty of fidelity, an employee should act in good faith and fidelity (Flannigan, 2016). Duty of fidelity is different from the fiduciary duty. In case of fidelity, an employee has to work for securing the employer’s interest. However, in Trident Pharm Pte Ltd v Yong Pei Pei Tracey and another [2014] SGHC 59, it has been observed that if the employee is not appointed by the plaintiff (employer) directly and no such contract has been made between them, the principle will not apply on them. Duty not to compete, duty of confidentiality and duty not to use the confidential information of the employer are some instances of duty of fidelity. Therefore, if in an employment contract, it has been mentioned that an employee could not compete the employer even after terminated from the job and the employee has given his consent over the same, he is restricted to profess any similar business in future.
In this case, it has been observed that Donald was working as the Marketing Director for Henry’s company and in the employment contract, it has been mentioned that Donald could not compete Henry even after the completion of his job. Therefore, the principle of restrictive covenant will apply on it. Further, it is the duty of the employee to act in good faith and maintain the terms of the employment contract he has entered into. The employee could not bring the claim of separate entity of the company, as he has expressed his consent for not to profess any similar kind of business. Failure to maintain such liability will lead to legal action against such employee.
Conclusion:
Therefore, it can be concluded with the view that Donald should have to maintain all the clauses of the employment contract and he should not required to make any breach regarding the same. In this case, Henry can take legal action against Donald if he tries to compete his business.
References:
Bishara, N. D., Martin, K. J., & Thomas, R. S. (2015). An empirical analysis of noncompetition clauses and other restrictive postemployment covenants. Vand. L. Rev., 68, 1.
Butterfield v Forrester [1809].
Curtis V Chemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 805
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 532.
Flannigan, R. (2016). Constructing an Employee Duty of Fidelity?.
Frazer, A. (2015). The employee’s contractual duty of fidelity.
Goudkamp, J. (2017). The contributory negligence doctrine: four commercial law problems.
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1935) UKPC 62
Jones, E. (2016). Exclusion Clauses.
McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).
Patten, B., & Saunders, H. (2018). Professional negligence in construction. Routledge.
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd. (1971) 1 All ER 686
Trident Pharm Pte Ltd v Yong Pei Pei Tracey and another [2014] SGHC 59
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download
