Legal Quiz

Storyline One:

In September 1999, Victoria and Andy decide that they want to make an escape from the new year and millennium celebrations.

Thinking carefully on where they will be able to really get away from it all, they decide to go for a winter sun package. They quickly make a booking for a seven-day package commencing on December 30 1999 on a remote, tropical island.

The package is put together by a specialist called Tasty Tropical. Unfortunately, just before they are due to set off on their holiday, some bad news arrives.

On December 29 they are informed by Tasty Tropical that the package has had to be cancelled due to overbooking at their selected accommodation on the island.

They are offered an alternative holiday, to an almost identical island around 20 miles from the original, in identical accommodation, which they duly accept as the difference is negligible.

Once they are there, more bad news befalls on the morning of 31 December.

A nearby volcano violently erupts on the second island and they have to be evacuated to the nearest mainland, where they are told they will be again offered an alternative.

However, on arrival they are not offered anything and are simply left at the airport, despite repeated complaints, until January 2.

Tasty Tropical then offers the unlucky couple a two-night package in Paris as compensation, which they reject.

Will Tasty Tropical be liable to pay compensation for the first alteration?

Will Tasty Tropical be liable to pay compensation for the need to evacuate them from the second island?

Is the offer of a trip to Paris sufficient to discharge any liability on the part of Tasty Tropical for leaving the couple at the airport and failing to provide the original package?

Question one: Probably not, as the alternative offered was so similar to the original, and the couple accepted it.

Question two: Probably not, as the occurrence which precipitated this was unforeseeable and unavoidable.

Question three: No, as Tasty Tropical did not inform the couple of what was happening and did not honour their promise to provide another millennium package. Also, the Paris trip is not an appropriate alternative.

Linda and Simon book a skiing package over the millennium period. They are driving to the resort but the package includes not only the cost of the chalet but also the cost of lift passes and return ferry.

Linda and Simon, who is a lawyer, are travelling with two other couples and their respective children.

The package is provided by Sloppy Skiers and includes skiing tuition for the children and skiing equipment for all members of the group. When they arrive, the skiing instructor refuses to teach Simon and Linda’s daughter, saying she is too young.

Simon is angry, as he specifically asked when booking the holiday whether this would be the case and was told there would be no problem.

On the second day, Simon, who is a more experienced skier than the other members of the group, decides to go skiing alone, but injures his leg when one of his skis snaps and is unable to ski again for the whole holiday.

He is furious about this and takes his frustration out on the rest of the group, getting drunk every night in a bar up the hill from his and Linda’s chalet.

Sloppy Skiers’ representative warns him that the walk back from the bar is rather dangerous when extremely drunk as the hill is so steep and suggests that if he wants to drink that much, he should maybe do so in a bar that’s closer to his chalet.

However, Simon ignores her and, on the last night, drinks so much that he falls over, slides down the slope and gets concussion.

Are Sloppy Skiers liable to Simon for the refusal on the part of the ski instructor to teach his and Linda’s daughter?

Are Sloppy Skiers liable to Simon for the injury to his leg?

Are Sloppy Skiers liable to Simon for his concussion?

Question one: Yes, as he was informed by a representative of the company that his daughter would receive tuition.

Question two: Yes, if this was due to a faulty ski, as the skiing equipment was provided as part of the package.

Question three: No, despite the fact that they probably have liability for Simon’s initial leg injury, Simon has a duty to take reasonable care of himself, and, contrary to the representative’s specific advice, does not.