The issue of this case will be whether James can hold Happy Holiday Hotel responsible for the loss of his property notwithstanding the exemption clause found in the hotel rooms.
Under the Exemption Clauses in Common Law, it states that in order for this clause to be valid, the clause must be included in the contract when the contract is made. If there is any attempt to include it in after the contract has been made, the clause will be deemed as not valid.
Based on The Exemption Clauses in Common Law, although the hotel have displayed many signs stating that “Management will not be responsible for any valuables lost if these are not …show more content…
In conclusion, James could hold Happy Holiday Hotel responsible for his injuries because the hotel did not exercise The Duty of Care to ensure James safety during his stay in the hotel only to a certain extent, as he had also contributed partially to the result of him being injured, by trying to escaping from a trapped cubicle in a dangerous manner. Hence, the hotel would not be fully responsible for James injuries.
Qn 3: The nature of sales transactions governing the sales of goods and the relevant statute James can turn to for help in cancelling the contract and recovering his money.
The issue of this question is James had purchase a laptop from a salesman in Sim Lim Square. During the purchase, he had informed the salesman on the requirement that he needs for the laptop. The salesman knowing James is not technical proficient person, he had sold James a laptop which is an older version as compare to what James wanted at a much higher price.
Under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, a consumer who has purchase a products or services involving an unfair practice may bring legal action against the supplier. Any supplier who have made any false claim of the product or services as a