Business law Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 3

Business right - Assignment workoutFor Consideration To Be Valid, It Must Be Sufficient But Need Not Be Adequate. Explain This Rule and Cite Relevant Court Decisions 12 References 15 Question 1 Issue In relation to the case of Freda v Gullies Hotel, it has been discovered that Freda has prosecuted legal charges against the prudence of Gullies Hotel due to the aspect of losing her money and expensive jewelleries from her room within the hotel premise. However, the management of Gullies Hotel has refused to accept the responsibility in lieu of their prior handbill that The Gullies Hotel and its Management would not be held liable for the safety of any valuable left in the guests room. The Hotel has safe deposit boxes at the reception. Rule In accordance with the scenario of the case Freda v Gullies Hotel, it has been recognised that the case involves the issue of loss of customers wealth within the time period while she was obtaining the organisational services. In this context, the case can be considered under(a) the Vicarious Liability Law under the provision of UK Business Law (Tort Law) (Jones, 2011). The provision under the constabulary constitutes a set of measures which can be taken a victim against the employers while they are found to be responsible for any loss faced by their customer while undertaking their services. The rule involved within the vicarious law includes different principles that ensure to protect the customers from any misconduct by the employers. Therefore, the law can be appropriately applied in order to mitigate the issue presented in the case Fred v Gullies Hotel (Jones, 2011). Application It has been observed that the case of Freda v Gullies Hotel can be applied to the principles and regulations under the Vicarious Liability Law. Therefore, Gullies Hotel can be sued based on significant legal charges made by Freda. The principles and regulations under the vicarious liability ensure to protect the customers in a scenario of l osing their invaluable belongings while undertaking the organisational services. In accordance with the strict liability of the law, the management of Gullies is liable for the issue (Jones, 2011). Similar to the stated concern, Freda lost her money and expensive jewelleries during her absence in Gullies Hotels room that she booked. Conclusion With reference to the stated law and the case of Freda v Gullies Hotel, it has been observed that the event of missing of customers possession is regulated under the provisions of vicarious liability doctrine. Moreover, the prior consciousness related development cannot be applied as the customer was still under that service rendered by the organisation. In accordance with the principle under the Act of vicarious liability, the management of Gullies Hotel can be sued due to their culpable practice. In this regard, Freda can sue the management of Gullies Hotel and take appropriate legal steps (Jones, 2011). Relevant Case Example Olley v Marlbo rough Court 1949 The case of Olley v Marlborough Court 1949 can be considered as similar to the aforesaid case scenario. In accordance with the case of Olley v Marlborough (1949), it has been witnessed that the claimant found her fur coat theft from the hotel premise of Marlborough. However, in this case, it has also been observed that the defendant party i.e. Marlborough did not mention any prior reveal regarding the probability of theft of the customer liabilities from the hotel pr