Legal Quiz

Storyline One:

Quite Nice Holidays (UK) Limited is an incoming tour operator. It has contracted with a German tour operator to arrange 60 hotel rooms in a central London hotel for the German operator’s customers coming to England for a stay in July.

Quite Nice Holidays approaches the Never Let You Down Hotel in order to make a booking.

There is no formal contract drawn up with the hotel, but there is an exchange of facsimiles in January 1999.

In these exchanges, Quite Nice Holidays agree to pay a deposit of £40 per room in January with remainder of the balance to be paid in May.

All these payments are made. There is no formal contract with the German tour operator either but again only an exchange of facsimiles dealing solely with payment terms.

In June, the hotel tells Quite Nice Holidays it is going to shut in July in order to complete some refurbishment work.

The hotel refuses to make alternative arrangements and says this is responsibility of Quite Nice Holidays.

However the hotel does refund to Quite Nice Holidays all the deposits and payments that have already been made.

Question 1 If the alternative arrangements are most expensive, does the hotel have any liability to Quite Nice Holidays?

Question 2 Does Quite Nice Holidays have any liability to the German tour operator to make alternative arrangements irrespective of the cost?

Question 3 Does Quite Nice Holidays have any liability to the German tour operator for the additional cost if the alternative arrangements are more expensive?

Question one: Possibly. If there are no applicable contract terms, there is not necessarily an obligation on the part of the hotel to assist but the hotel would be liable to pay additional costs incurred.

Question two: Possibly. Again, the absence of contract terms may mean there is no obligation to look for alternatives but this is of course the way to seek to avoid any other liability.

Question three: Yes.

Mel’s Tours organises safari package holidays to Africa. These holidays are based around seven nights in a tented village in a game reserve, but includes a considerable amount of jeep transportation.

Mel’s Tours’ costings are based on a minimum of 20 people taking each trip. Sue and Sam go ahead and book a package for travel in November 1999.

The booking is made through travel agents, Bookers International. Bookers only have one copy of the Mel’s Tours brochure.

Bookers go through the holiday description with Sue and Sam. But the agent then fails to go through the booking conditions with them.

In fact, no reference at all is made to these booking conditions. These conditions contain an express provision that a minimum of 20 people is required for the holiday Sue and Sam have booked.

If 20 people have not booked the safari within 10 weeks of the departure date, Mel’s Tours says it will cancel the holiday and refund any monies, but it will be under no other obligation.

Twenty people do not book places on the safari within the 10 weeks and Mel Tours cancel the holiday.

Sue and Sam claim that they were unaware of the booking conditions and are therefore not bound by them.

Are Sue and Sam bound by the booking conditions?

Do the Package Travel Regulations have any application?

Does Mel’s Tours have any claim against Bookers International?

Question one: Probably not. If the booking conditions were not drawn to their attention.

Question two: Yes. Regulation 13 provides that Mel’s Tours does not have to pay compensation where there are fewer people than required for the holiday to go ahead. But, Mel’s Tours will probably be unable to rely on this because the booking condition was not brought to Sue and Sam’s attention by the agent dealing with their holiday.

Question three: Probably. Bookers International should have brought the booking conditions to Sue and Sam’s attention.