Legal Quiz

Storyline One: BRIDGET, in a mood of post-Christmas blues, decides that a weekend of overseas retail therapy is called for. She telephones Satisfaction Guaranteed Limited a city-breaks tour operator to make a late booking for a mid-January 1999 weekend trip to New York.

She pays by credit card the sum of £590 for her airfare, departing on Friday January 15, returning Sunday January 15 with two nights’ accommodation at a five-star hotel in New York.

She does not see any brochure and is told to collect her tickets at Heathrow.

Bridget arrives at the airport 2hrs 30mins before departure but there are no tickets there because of an administrative failure on the part of the tour operator.

She declines the chance to pay for new tickets and obtain a refund from her tour operator.

She claims compensation from the operator which says the booking is subject to its booking conditions which provide that, apart from anything else, the maximum compensation she can receive for loss of enjoyment is £100.

Can Satisfaction Guaranteed Limited rely upon its booking conditions?

Does Bridget’s failure to pay for new tickets prevent her from making a claim against the tour operator?

Is Bridget entitled not only to a refund of the £590 paid to the tour operator but also compensation for loss of enjoyment?

Question 1: Probably not. They were not drawn to Bridget’s attention at or before the time the contract was made.

Question 2: Probably no. While she has a duty to mitigate her loss, this does not mean that she has to spend money to so.

Question 3: Yes

Storyline Two: BOB and Dave have booked a skiing holiday with Downhill Tours Ltd. It is a seven day holiday in Val D’Isere.

The cost of the holiday includes, aside from transport, accommodation etc, the cost of the lift pass and the hire of skiing equipment.

On the fourth day of their holiday, Bob is going far too quickly down a mogul littered slope when he has a dramatic fall.

The consequences of the fall are exacerbated by the fact that the binding on his right ski does not work. The ski does not come off and he breaks his ankle.

This happens mid-morning and Dave spends several hours helping the emergency services get Bob off the mountain and to a doctor.

Dave decides there is nothing he can do for Bob when he goes to hospital and so remains skiing.

Since he has lost several hours he is anxious to put in the most miles possible. This means that he cuts it too fine when returning to the resort in the evening and arrives at a lift on his homeward journey to find a rope barrier has been placed across the entrance, indicating that it is shut.

However, the lift is still working and Dave is anxious he is not stranded. He slips under the rope while the lift attendant’s back is turned and makes his way forward to the chair lift. But because the seats have not been put down he is forced to hang onto the overhead steel bar with his hands.

He does not have the strength to get to the top of the lift this way and falls off after only 50 yards, breaking his leg, dislocating his shoulder and breaking several ribs.

Both Bob and Dave make claims against Downhill Tours Ltd.

Does Downhill Tours Ltd have any liability to Bob?

Does Downhill Tours Ltd have any liability to Dave?

Does Dave’s action in any way dilute or extinguish any liability which the tour operator may have?

Question 1: Potentially yes. The cost of the ski hire equipment was included as part of a package and the tour operator will therefore be liable if it was defective.

Question 2: Potentially yes. If there was any failing on the part of the lift attendant, since the cost of the lift pass was part of a package.

Question 3: Contributory negligence can reduce or extinguish liability and Dave’s actions were foolhardy in the extreme.