Legal Quiz

Storyline One:

Mr and Mrs Kimper book a two-week package holiday to Cyprus, departing August 21 1999. The tour operator is Cheapo Holidays, and the travel agent is Serve You Well Agency Limited.

The cost of the package is £449 per person for half-board accommodation. One week after making the booking, the Kimpers spot an advertisement placed in a national newspaper by Extremely Cheapo Holidays, an unrelated tour operator.

It advertises the same package for the same dates at a per person cost of £400.

The Kimper’s claim that Cheapo Holidays should refund them the difference and also claim that Serve You Well should have advised them of the availability of the Extremely Cheapo Holidays package since Serve You Well also racked that brochure.

Serve You Well refused to do so saying that the Kimpers specifically asked for the Cheapo Holidays Package.

Somewhat disgruntled, the Kimpers do not immediately take any action.

However, some weeks before departure, they spot an advertisement placed by Cheapo Holidays advertising the same package for £350 per person. Apoplectic, the Kimpers demand £100 per person from Cheapo Holidays.

Is Cheapo Holidays under any obligation to pay the Kimpers the difference between its price and that advertised by Extremely Cheapo Holidays?

Is Serve You Well obliged to pay the Kimpers the difference between Cheapo Holidays’ price and that advertised by Extremely Cheapo Holidays?

Is Cheapo Holidays under any obligation to pay the Kimpers the difference between its original price and that later advertised by it?

Answers

Question one: No. Unless there was some form of price promise in the brochure.

Question two: Possibly. It is arguable that the agency should have advised of the availability of another package at a cheaper price.

Question three: No. Unless there was some form of price promise in the brochure.

Mance and Jeff have been planning their trip to the US in May 1999 for some time. The trip includes some days in Las Vegas. It is a particularly important holiday because they intend to get married in Las Vegas.

Jeff is an ageing rocker who is adamant the ceremony should be conducted with Elvis music playing in the background, a priest dressed as Elvis and special Elvis clothes available to wear.

The trip is being organised by Rock ‘n’ Roll Tours, which assures Jeff and Mance that all arrangements can be made exactly as specified and that the hotel accommodation which is being booked will ensure that family and guests who are also travelling will be in rooms side by side in the hotel.

The booking conditions do contain a statement that special requests are not guaranteed, and this is also pointed out on the confirmation invoice.

Prior to the confirmation invoice, however, a letter has been sent by Rock ‘n’ Roll Tours which states: “We confirm your special request that all members of your party will be accommodated in rooms side by side”

Upon arrival in Las Vegas, two of the party are told they cannot be accommodated in the hotel but alternative accommodation has been arranged in a different one – the others are all on different floors. This causes considerable inconvenience and disruption to the planned party activities.

At the ceremony itself, there is indeed a priest dressed as Elvis, but the priest is female which somewhat disconcerts Jeff. Also, instead of, as anticipated, Love Me Tender, being played throughout the ceremony, Heartbreak hotel is played, followed by In the Ghetto.

Mance and Jeff are not amused by the situation.

Is Rock ‘n’ Roll Tours liable to compensate Mance and Jeff for inconvenience caused by the two party members being accommodated in the separate hotel?

Is Rock ‘n’ Roll Tours liable to compensate Mance and Jeff for inconvenience caused by the rest of the party members accommodated on separate floors?

Is Rock ‘n ‘Roll Tours liable to compensate Mance and Jeff for upset caused by the ‘unusual’ wedding arrangements?

Question one: Yes. It is virtually inconceivable that the tour operator can show no fault on its part or the hotels for one of the reasons set out in Regulation 15 as justification for separate accommodation.

Question two: Possibly. Depending upon the interpretation given to the courts to the pre-confirmation invoice letter.

Question three: Probably. Depending upon how specific was the confirmation of the actual ceremony arrangements (I doubt that anyone would expect, at the risk of a politically incorrect comment, an Elvis priest to be female).