Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 44 views

    Answer 1

    Uploaded by

    shakti tripat
    The document discusses arguments from both sides in a legal case regarding whether a hotel is liable for damages to a customer's vehicle that caught fire while parked at the hotel. Mr. Pran Lal (the appellant) argues that under contract law and past cases, the hotel (Ranjit) is liable as a bailee for failing to properly care for the vehicle that was in their possession when it was handed to the valet. The hotel had a duty of care as a service provider to Mr. Pran as a consumer. Hotel Ranjit (the respondent) argues that lack of care cannot be proven based on the facts. The parking token disclaims liability for losses from mechanical defects. Under contract law

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Answer 1

    Uploaded by

    shakti tripat
    44 views2 pages
    The document discusses arguments from both sides in a legal case regarding whether a hotel is liable for damages to a customer's vehicle that caught fire while parked at the hotel. Mr. Pran Lal (the appellant) argues that under contract law and past cases, the hotel (Ranjit) is liable as a bailee for failing to properly care for the vehicle that was in their possession when it was handed to the valet. The hotel had a duty of care as a service provider to Mr. Pran as a consumer. Hotel Ranjit (the respondent) argues that lack of care cannot be proven based on the facts. The parking token disclaims liability for losses from mechanical defects. Under contract law

    Original Description:

    answer to cc12

    Original Title

    ANSWER 1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses arguments from both sides in a legal case regarding whether a hotel is liable for damages to a customer's vehicle that caught fire while parked at the hotel. Mr. Pran Lal (the appellant) argues that under contract law and past cases, the hotel (Ranjit) is liable as a bailee for failing to properly care for the vehicle that was in their possession when it was handed to the valet. The hotel had a duty of care as a service provider to Mr. Pran as a consumer. Hotel Ranjit (the respondent) argues that lack of care cannot be proven based on the facts. The parking token disclaims liability for losses from mechanical defects. Under contract law

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    44 views2 pages

    Answer 1

    Uploaded by

    shakti tripat
    The document discusses arguments from both sides in a legal case regarding whether a hotel is liable for damages to a customer's vehicle that caught fire while parked at the hotel. Mr. Pran Lal (the appellant) argues that under contract law and past cases, the hotel (Ranjit) is liable as a bailee for failing to properly care for the vehicle that was in their possession when it was handed to the valet. The hotel had a duty of care as a service provider to Mr. Pran as a consumer. Hotel Ranjit (the respondent) argues that lack of care cannot be proven based on the facts. The parking token disclaims liability for losses from mechanical defects. Under contract law

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    ANSWER 1 (A)

    The main issue raised in the question was wether the hotel is liable to pay for the
    damages or not . So, as it is asked in the question to prepare arguments from both the sides,
    these are-
    Arguments by Mr. Pran Lal (Appellant)
    1. As Mr. Pran Lal visited the hotel for dinner and he handed over the key to the valet
    there is transfer of possession for the purpose of parking. So, there is bailment of
    vehicle under sec.148 of the Indian contract act and also it is decided in the case of
    Taj Mahal Hotel v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. &Ors. So, under the contract of
    bailment bailee has to take care of goods bailed as prescribed in the sec.151 of the
    contract act which Hotel Ranjit has failed to taken care of as the vehicle was burnt in
    their possession.
    2. Mr. Pran is the consumer of the hotel Ranjit and there is duty of care to the consumers
    by the service provider and the Hotel Ranjit was failed in doing so. So as in the cases
    of Bombay Brazzerie vs Mulchand Agarwal and Taj Mahal Hotel v. United India
    Insurance Co. Ltd. &Ors ,(where facts were similar to this case) compensation was
    granted on the grounds of deficiency in service it should also be applied here.
    3. These are the cases where it was held that the liability of hotels is strict when there is
    damage to the property of consumer in their premises.
    a. Williams v. Linnitt 1 ALL E.R. 278 (Eng. 1951)
    b. Dickerson v. Rogers
    So, the Hotel should be held strictly liable.
    Arguments by Hotel Ranjit (Respondent)
    1. There is bailment of the vehicle under sec.148 of the Indian contract act but there is
    lack of care under sec.151 of the contract act and under consumer law cannot be
    established from the given fact.
    2. As the parking token states that in the event of any loss, theft, damages due to natural
    causes, and due to the inherent defect in the vehicle the hotel will not be liable, and
    the fact that vehicle was destroyed by the electrical or mechanical defect shows the
    presence of inherent defect in the vehicle. So, hotel Ranjit has not any liability.
    3. According to the sec.150 of the Indian contract act it is duty of the bailor to disclose
    faults that he is aware of in the goods bailed and if he does not make such disclosure,
    he is responsible for his loss not the bailee. So, if there is any mechanical and
    electrical defect in the vehicle Mr. Pran has not disclosed to the hotel’s parking staff.
    So, hotel Ranjit can claim discharge of duty under this section also.
    4. The strict liability principle of hotel owners has been replaced by the principle of
    negligence on the part of the hotels.(Laird v. Eichold)

    You might also like