Rafting Company vs Hillary
Case# 4 Rafting Company vs Hillary
Rafting Company Arguments:
Hillary and Hal entered into a legal enforceable valid contract with Rafting Company. The legal relationship was formed when Hillary and Hal verbally accepted the offer from tour group, and followed up with payment. As well, all six basic elements of a contract exist as I will demonstrate.
The Tour Company’s package offer was advertised as an “invitation to do business” and Hillary & Hal accepted the offer to hotel stay, meal and water rafting tour for $300. They paid for the tour when they arrived the night before the tour was to happen.
Hillary and Hal verbally and in writing accepted the tour company’s terms & conditions according to their standard release which states the tour company was not responsible for any loss or damages suffered by any passenger for any reason including negligence on the part of the company, employees, or agents. Hillary & Hal were informed by a representative of the company to put on the life jacket and sign the release or they would not be allowed on the raft
Hillary and Hal paid $300.00 in consideration for the offer they verbally agreed to, and were in sound capacity to make clear and sound mental decisions.
The legality shows that the “invitation to do business” became legally binding when Hillary & Hal accepted and paid the advertised tour company as well as signing the waiver making this enforceable.
During the water rafting, the raft turned over and Hal and two other persons drowned. The Rafting Company fitted each person on the raft with a life jacket with “normal adult buoyancy rating”. According to Provincial Authorities a more suitable life jacket would probably not saved Hals life because of swiftness of river at accident site
Hillary’s Arguments:
The agreement should be void as both Hillary & Hal were under duress to sign the waiver as the evident threat of losing their $300 that they already paid for the tour would be lost
Hillary and Hal were
Rafting Company Arguments:
Hillary and Hal entered into a legal enforceable valid contract with Rafting Company. The legal relationship was formed when Hillary and Hal verbally accepted the offer from tour group, and followed up with payment. As well, all six basic elements of a contract exist as I will demonstrate.
The Tour Company’s package offer was advertised as an “invitation to do business” and Hillary & Hal accepted the offer to hotel stay, meal and water rafting tour for $300. They paid for the tour when they arrived the night before the tour was to happen.
Hillary and Hal verbally and in writing accepted the tour company’s terms & conditions according to their standard release which states the tour company was not responsible for any loss or damages suffered by any passenger for any reason including negligence on the part of the company, employees, or agents. Hillary & Hal were informed by a representative of the company to put on the life jacket and sign the release or they would not be allowed on the raft
Hillary and Hal paid $300.00 in consideration for the offer they verbally agreed to, and were in sound capacity to make clear and sound mental decisions.
The legality shows that the “invitation to do business” became legally binding when Hillary & Hal accepted and paid the advertised tour company as well as signing the waiver making this enforceable.
During the water rafting, the raft turned over and Hal and two other persons drowned. The Rafting Company fitted each person on the raft with a life jacket with “normal adult buoyancy rating”. According to Provincial Authorities a more suitable life jacket would probably not saved Hals life because of swiftness of river at accident site
Hillary’s Arguments:
The agreement should be void as both Hillary & Hal were under duress to sign the waiver as the evident threat of losing their $300 that they already paid for the tour would be lost
Hillary and Hal were