The Rights of the Guest and Business - Case Study Example

People in society represent the consumer group that moves all national economies and the international forum. These consumers must be protected by the laws of the state to ensure the system works properly and the members of society are protected from wrongdoing through a legal platform that covers both criminal and civil liability. This report analyses two incidents that occurred to the same individual in the person's stay at a hotel in the United Kingdom which represent two potential cases whose potential outcome will be dissected in this piece of literature. The first event that occurred to Peter in his stay at the McGregor's hotel involved the loss of property while at the premises of the business owner that rented a room to the plaintiff. An expensive Olympus video camera disappeared during the guess stay at the hotel and the Hotel employees never notified the customer of the existence a safe service the firm had available to its clients for an extra monetary charge. When this occurred Peter felt the hotel was responsible for the loss of his property. The latter incident involved Peter purchasing a seafood meal in the Hotel's restaurant that caused to him to become sick due to food poisoning. The two combined incident made Peter an unsatisfied client that felt abused. Peter needs legal advice on what are his legal options in order to battle against the business that ruined his priceless vacation time. Two laws that determine the rights of the guess and the business operating in the hospitality industry are the Hotel Proprietors Act of 1956 and the Occupiers Act of 1957. The Hotel Act 1956 established the parameters that protect the business owner from paying damages to the guess for loss of personal property. The general content of the act is geared towards protecting the business establishment, but it specifies the situations in which the hotel is liable irrelevant of the protection the Act itself provides for companies. The Act states that a hotel or the proprietor of a hotel shall not be liable as an innkeeper to make good to any traveler any loss or damage to personal property the client brought to the premises before or after the person check into the hospitality facilities (Statutelaw, 1991). The circumstances in which the hotel liable for the damage or loss of property of the guess are illustrated in the list below: When the property was stolen, loss or damage through the neglect, fault of the proprietors or any of his employees If the property in question was given to a hotel representative for safe custody such as safe deposit box and the item ended up loss or being damage in any way If at the time of arrival the guess house refused to accept a specific item to be placed in safe custody and the item ended up being stolen or damage during the guess stay in the premises (Statutelaw, 1991). A second law provides the guidelines and legal basis in the case of property loss or damage in a case such as the Peter v McGregor is the Occupiers Act of 1957. The focus of this Act was to provide protection to the customer instead of the business owner in transactions involving the rent of a room in a guess house or hotel. The Occupiers Act of 1957 establishes the parameters to determine liability of occupiers and others for injury or damage resulting to a person or goods lawfully on any land or other property from damages dangers due to the state of the property or to things done to it (Statutelaw, 1991). This Act mentions property damage while in the premises of a hotel, but it does not go into any specifics and simply provides a general overview of such a situation without itemizing which situation the guess has the legal right to obtain an economic remuneration for any potential loss of property. In Donoghue v Stevenson the plaintiff suffered emotional, property and bodily harm due to the product the individual purchased from the company accused of the negligence. In the month of April of 1929 Mrs. Mary M'Alister knows as Donoghue accused David Stevenson, a water manufacturer of negligence due to bodily hard caused by drinking a ginger beer manufactured by the defendant (Safetyphoto). The plaintiff consumed the drink which had a dark label that prevented the liquid content from been seen. The House of Lords ruled against Stevenson for violating duty of care. The common law of duty of care was the legal commonly referred to as the "neighbor principle" was the legal basis that the judge used to rule against Stevenson in this case. The precedent this case established could be used by the lawyer Peter hired as an argument to establish the position of his client and establish liability for the food poisoning episode. The Proprietors Act of 1956 is a piece of legislation that establish the primary legal norm that establishes the standard which a court would use to make a decision today based on the facts that occurred the day of the incident The total claim the plaintiff made against the defendant was 500 pounds. The amount of the claim applying a 4% discount rate for inflation is worth in today's money a total of 5000 pounds in monetary liability. The Proprietors Property Act if the a defendant wins a case related to this law limits the business liability to minimum of 50 pounds and a maximum of 100 pounds per item loss (Opsi, 2004). The loss of property Peter suffered was unfortunate and will most likely caused the hotel the loss of a client that represented a future source of income of customer retention was achieved. The client had an imminent loss but the thing that hurt this individual is that he never asked the receptionist or any hotel employee to safe guard that particular item. If the hotel did not offered the service the only thing Peter can truly claim is incompetence. The Hotel Proprietors Act of 1956 clearly states that the hotel is not liable for damages to property. None of the three exceptions that would make the business liable occurred in this case. There is no way to proof that the business owner or any of his servants were negligent or any way involved in the loss of the item. The safe box clauses of the Hotel Proprietors Act do not apply in this case since the service was never used and the hotel at no point in time denied the customer providing him with such as service since the customer never asked for it. My legal advice to this client was not to file a lawsuit since the most likely scenario is the plaintiff would lose this case. The second incident and potential legal case that occurred to Peter during his stay at McGregor's hotel was a food poisoning episode after consuming an oyster plate ordered at the hotel's restaurant. This incident brought bodily harm to the client and placed his health and life in danger. There are several legislation in English law that protects consumers from this type of detrimental event caused by the business who got paid for a product or service. The Food and Safety Act 1990 is one of the legal remedies that could be used in a lawsuit against McGregor Hotel. The Food and Safety Act 1990 imposes very strict guidelines and severe penalties if found guilty of violating the terms of the legislation to business entities dedicated to selling food for human consumption in the United Kingdom region. Article 16(b) of this Act establishes provisions for securing that the food serve by a business is fit for human consumption and meets microbiological standards (Opsi, 1991). The punishment for parties guilty of violating this act includes penalties of a criminal nature. A person or business found guilty of violating this law according to article 35 can be convicted for up to two years of imprisonment and fined up to 20,000 pounds (Opsi, 1991). If the lawyer Peter hires uses this Act to charge the company of wrongdoing the lawyer would bring evidence to the court for a criminal case against McGregor Hotel. Food poisoning is a very dangerous health matter that can not occur at any point in a restaurant establishment. Food can be contaminated with the micro-organism that cause food poisoning at any stage of the food chain which includes the final stage is food is sold ready to eat (Food Poisoning, 2003). Two others laws that protect customers in commerce transactions are Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. The Sale and Supply Act of 1979 states that whenever a good is sold it must comply with bought they must comfort with contract which implies they must meet the purpose and comply with satisfactory quality (Berr, 2008). Obviously a food product sold to a client that causes the person to get ill as a consequence is a product that does not meet with any type of quality standard. The plaintiff could use this argument to their advantage in a court of law. This law is more geared towards products commonly found is a retail store, but food served is a product not a service thus the transaction between Peter and the restaurant at McGregor is covered by this piece of legislation. Another clause of this Act that positive for customer is that the seller not the manufacturer is liable for any defect in the product. This implies that the hotel restaurant can not claim that the fisherperson or wholesaler that sold the raw seafood to him is responsible for the rotten product Peter received. The Supply of Goods and Services Act of 1982 stipulate that a business must carry out a service with reasonable care and skill (Berr, 2008). In the case against McGregor the plaintiff violated this act by providing an unacceptable food service to Peter. The combination of these two acts can be used by a lawyer against McGregor to file a civil lawsuit in order to obtain a financial reward for the client. The event that occurred to Peter in his stay at a guest at McGregor Hotel are the types of considering issues firms faced around the world. The gentleman in this case suffered both material damage and bodily harm due to the business transactions with the Hotel that was to provide his with a vacation instead of a living nightmare. The first ordeal was unfortunate but does represent the type of event that merits the time of a busy judiciaries system that should be used for true injustices. The incident does serve as a tool that can be used solidify the strong case of the defendant has against McGregor. The second occurrence was a direct attack against Peter's physical well being. Peter survived the negligent incidence and should not pursue criminal charges since the retrieval of those intentions can lead to an out of court settlement since both the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 protect him. The Food Act 1990 is the checkmate move that provides the lawyer with bargaining power and the key to win in a court of law. References Berr.gov (2008). Sale of Sale Act Quick Facts. Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from http://www.berr.gov.uk/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html Berr.gov (2008). Supply of Goods and Quick Service Act 1982. Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from http://www.berr.gov.uk/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html Food Poisoning (2003). Postnote. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Opsi.gov (1990). Preliminary: Part I. Office of Public Sector Information. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/ukpga_19900016_en_2#pt1-l1g6 Opsi.gov (1990). Administration and Enforcement. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/ukpga_19900016_en_2#pt1-l1g6 Safetyphoto.com. Donoghue v Stevenson. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from http://www.safetyphoto.co.uk/subsite/case%20abcd/donoghue_v_Stevenson.htm Statute.gov (1991). Hotel Priopietors Act 1956 (v.62). Retrieved April 20, 2008 from http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx'LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=72&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1115289&activetextdocid=1115294 Statute.gov (1991). Occupiers Liability Act 1957 (v.31). Retrieved April 20, 2008 from http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx'LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=72&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1115289&activetextdocid=1115294 Read More