Question

Instructions :

• It is recommended that you use the IRAC problem solving method.

• You may use headings and subheadings to structure your answer.

• Your answer must include legal references (relevant cases and/or sections of Acts).

The word limit is 600 words.

Question 2

Earlier in the day, when Rob arrived at the Fancy Hotel before the performance, he was surprised to find that there was a valet car parking service. Rob had not been to the Fancy Hotel before but had used a valet car parking service in the past at another venue. He gave the keys of his Mercedes to the valet attendant and received a ticket in return. He put the ticket into his wallet without reading it.

At the end of the night, he goes to the valet desk and to ask for his car, but it is missing! One of the valet attendant’s recalled handing the car keys over to a customer who had lost his ticket but who was able to identify the car when walking through the carpark.

Rob is furious and demands to speak to Steve, the hotel manager. Steve points to the back of Rob’s ticket which reads: ‘The Fancy Hotel will not be responsible for any damage caused to cars howsoever that damage is caused.’ Steve then says that the same clause is also printed on a large sign in the Hotel entrance. Rob protests and says that he never read the ticket and as he did not enter the Hotel through the main entrance he never saw the sign. Rob wants to sue.  

Using relevant legal principles, discuss whether Rob would be able to sue the Hotel, or whether the Hotel would be able to rely upon the exclusion clause.

Answer 1

Issue:

The issue here is to be determined is whether Rob has the right to sue the Fancy Hotel or whether it is the Fancy Hotel that can rely on the exclusion clause to avoid its liability of looking after the car of Rob.

Rules:

Exclusion clauses are often printed in contracts that allow the parties to a contract to avoid certain liabilities provided the conditions mentioned in the exclusion clause are satisfied. However, exclusion clause does not mean that the parties to a contract can avoid regular and normal liabilities that are expected to be performed by the parties to a contract. Thus, it is important to understand that the contract law does not allow the parties to a contract to avoid normal and regular liabilities of contracts but merely incorporating exclusion clause in contracts. In case such exclusion contracts are incorporating in contracts with the motive of avoiding inherent liabilities of contracts then such exclusion clauses will be void. Thus, regular terms and conditions of contract will get the precedence over exclusion clauses in case the exclusion clauses are in contradictions with the terms and conditions of contracts.                              

Application:

In this case Rob arrived at the Fancy Hotel that has valet car parking service. The car parking service in general supposed to look after the cars of customers and this is an inherent and implied co0ndition of contract between the customer and the hotels. After entering the hotel Rob gave the key of his Mercedes to a car attendant in the valet car parking service. The car parking service in the meantime has given the car to another customer who has lost his car parking ticket after the customer identified Rob’s car as his own car. Rob while exiting the hotel asked to take his car however, the car is missing at the car parking area as it has already been given to another customer by the car attendant.

The hotel instead of accepting its mistake of looking after the car of its customer has tried to show the exclusion clause which is printed at the back of the car parking ticket that mentions that the hotel is not liable for any damage to the car of the customers irrespective of the reason of such damage. The exclusion clause is therefore absolutely void as the clause is in contradiction of implied terms and conditions of contact. A car parking service in the hotel must take responsibility of the cars of its customers as it is inherent for such contract. Thus the exclusion clause mentioned at the back of car parking ticket of the hotel is void.

Conclusion:

Taking into consideration the discussion above it is clear that the Fancy Hotel has failed to discharge its responsibilities to look after the car of Rob. The exclusion clause at the back of the car parking ticket is not valid and will not be a valid defence to the Hotel for its lack of responsibility to look after the car. Thus, Rob has the right to sue the hotel for the breach of duty to ensure the safety and security of the car.