This essay aims to portray each individual party’s viewpoint on the incident that occurred regarding The Macgregor Hotel and the claimants Peter and Beatrice, in addition the Crown Prosecution Court will also be scrutinising the events which took place that evening. The crown prosecution court will be the first party to put their argument forward. In order to achieve this, the consecutive order of events need to be stated: •
Peter booked a room for a week at Macgregor Hotel. At the reception desk, where he made the booking, was a notice limiting the hotel’s liability for loss of, damage to guest’s property. •
Peter asked the receptionist to look after his camera but she refused saying that there was no room in the hotel safe. He stayed at the hotel any way and on the second night his camera went missing. •
On the second night Peter invited his friend Beatrice to dinner in the hotel’s restaurant. At the dinner Peter ordered Helford oysters for both of them, without consulting Beatrice. •
During their meal it has been found that the origin of oysters was wrong, in fact the oysters served came from Whitstable and several of them were bad. •
Beatrice got up and head to the toilets because I felt sick, when making my way there I started to feel dizzy and tripped over a ripped carpet on the stairs, falling hard and breaking her arm. The Trade Description Act 1968 provides statutory authority for a possible claim in breach as Section 1.article (1) states: Any person who, in the course of a trade or business-
(a) applies a false trade description to any goods; or
(b) supplies or o description is applied, offer to supply any goods to which a false trade description is applied, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be guilty of an offence.
Section 2 (1) states, that a trade description is an indication, direct or indirect, and by whatever means given, of any of the following matters with respect to any goods or parts of goods, that is to say- place or date of production.
The oysters could be said to have been misrepresented from the menu’s description as they were not what they were meant to be. Authority which supports this view comes from the case Jarvis v Swan Tours  QB 223, Swan Tours produced a brochure for a winter holiday. Mr Jarvis booked this holiday on the basis of the description in the brochure. However the description in the brochure was false as many activities described in the brochure did not take place. Swan Tours were found guilty of the offence. Therefore on these grounds Macgregor hotel should face liability as they also made a similar misrepresentation to what the plaintiffs thought they would receive.
In reference to Beatrice’s food poisoning, The Food Safety Act 1990 can be referenced, as it states in section 3, article (2): Presumptions that food intended for human consumption: Any food commonly used for human consumption shall, if sold or offered, exposed or kept for sale, be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have been sold or, as the case may be, to have been or to be intended for sale for human consumption. The defendant is therefore responsible for the food prepared by its restaurant, including its production and the way it is served. The restaurant owe a duty of care to its costumers by serving well prepared food at their own risk, the plaintiffs did not consent to eat the faulty oysters by entering the restaurant. According to The Food Safety Act 1990, section 14 (1) states, any person who sells to the purchaser’s prejudice any food which is not of the nature or substance or quality demanded by the purchaser shall be guilty of an offence. In addition to the above the Food Safety Act 1990 section 15 (1b) states, any person who gives with any food sold by him, or displays with any food offered or exposed by him for sale or in his possession for the purpose of sale, a label, whether or not attached to or printed on the wrapper or container, which is likely to...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document