Business Law

BUS 115
CA1 Individual Assignment
Deadline: 27 August, 11:59AM

1|Page
(a)

William, the travel executive from Wonderfully Amazing Holidays Pte Ltd (WAH), was
able to persuade Andrew and his family to go on a holiday to Rohoj, a resort in the
neighbouring country. William showed Andrew a number of brochures about Rohoj.
In the brochures that William showed to Andrew shows the amenities the resort has
to offer to Andrew and his family. The brochures show images of beautiful gardens, 2
King-sized beds in the rooms with an attached big bathroom, a 55 inch Curved Ultra
HD Smart TV and video game console.

Even after all that, Andrew however was still not very convinced with the amazing
amenities. In order to make Andrew take up the deal, William assured Andrew
confidently into WAHs standard contract. William reassured Andrew that he would
be able to spend quality time with his family and whenever they are hungry they can
just head to the 24-hour cafe to eat. In the end, Andrew decided to trust Williams
words and paid the full price of $2,000 for a 3 nights stay at the Rohoj Resort.

There was a contract made since there was a meeting of minds between the
offeror, William and the offeree, Andrew and his family. Andrew and his family has
showed willingness to enter into the contract that William has offered resulting in two
extra clauses on the amenities included in the contract. Therefore an offer was made
and that is the first element of a contract. The offer that William made with Andrew
was communicated in writing as Andrew had signed the contract that was prepared
by Williams company. The acceptance of the contract was made as there was an
expression of occurrence to the terms specifies that the offer was made by William,
and accepted by Andrew.

The third element of the contract is Consideration, which is a promise by one party.
William in exchange for promise to Andrew and Andrew has agreed to pay the full
amount in exchange of the definite promise made by William on all the amenities that
Rohoj Resort has to offer to Andrew and his family. There was a sufficient amount of
consideration as the promise was given by William was enough to make the other
party, Andrew, to proceed with the payment. The agreement was binned as William
had the intention to create a legal relationship with Andrew by adding the two
additional clauses to WAHs standard contract. Andrew agreed to the contract by
signing the contract, believing the terms that were offered by William. Therefore, the
contract was a binding one.

However, when Andrew and his family stayed at the Rohoj Resort, what the terms
and amenities offered by William turned out to be false as the resort was under
major renovation. Some of the amenities offered by the resort did not even match
with what the brochure Andrew had received. Instead of coming back home from the
holiday more relax, Andrew and his family was under even more stress than they
were before when they left for their so called relaxing holiday.

2|Page
To dismiss the contract, means that Andrew wants to end the contract. There are four ways
where a contract can be dismissed. Firstly by performance, second by frustration, third by
agreement and lastly by breach of contract. There was a frustration of the contract between
Andrew and William as the both of them were committed to something different from what
they had originally discussed. Therefore, the very basis of the contract has been destroyed.
The contract stated that there were unsparing amenities the resort had to offer, but what
Andrew and his family had experienced in the resort was the very opposite of unsparing
amenities. Hence, the original terms of contract were already very different from the real
situation.

This case that Andrew is facing is very much alike to the circumstances leading to
frustrations caused by the non-occurrence of an event as in the case of Krell v Henry. In this
case, Henry rented rooms from Krell with the purpose of watching the coronation ceremony
of King Edward VII of England. Henry paid half the deposit and the other half after the
procession. However, the coronation was cancelled as King Edward VII unfortunately fell ill.
Due to the situation, Henry refused to pay the balance when Krell claimed for it. In the end,
the contract was frustrated and Henry got his deposit back.

Although the current case study is not due to a non-occurrence of an event, but what Andrew
and his family has experienced was different from what they had expected and promised.
This is therefore an example of a non-occurrence of amenities rather than the events from
happening.

Even though some of the amenities do actually exist, the resort was under major renovation
and generated a large amount of noise which was definitely unpleasant to the ears of
Andrew and his family. William must have been informed by the resort that they are having
renovation. It is believed that William did not have any intentions of disclosing the true
situation of the resort to Andrew, as he probably was afraid that he would lose the deal if he
was to make the exact situation of the resort known to Andrew.

By notifying Andrew that King-sized beds were available and as promised in the contract, it
turned out to be only Queen-sized beds. That therefore, represents a misrepresentation by
William to Andrew. The size of the bathroom was so small that only one person can use it at
any one time, which was the opposite of what the brochure and William had stated.
Moreover, there was no mention of any kind of exemption clauses in the contract.

There is a breach of contract by WAH as the reasons mentioned in the paragraph above.
Since there is a breach in contract, Andrew can therefore apply for remedies.

3|Page
(b)

There are two categories of remedies for the breach of contract. They are Common Law
remedies and the Equitable remedies.

The Common Law damages include monetary compensation paid by the defaulting party to
the innocent party for the breach of the contract. The purpose is to position the innocent
party, as far as monetary compensation can in the same position to properly compensate
him.

Andrew had paid a full amount of $2,000 with the expectation of all the amenities mentioned
by WAH and the brochure that he was given. Therefore, Andrew should be entitled to
compensation of at least $2,000 under the Common Law damages.

There are three aspects of Common Law damaged to consider over. Causation, remoteness
and lastly mitigation. Causation is a lost suffered by the innocent party as a result of the
breach of contract made by the defaulting party.

Andrew and his family had to endure the absurd noise caused by the renovation, not being
to fully utilise the amenities provided by the resort that he has been looking forward to enjoy.
As a result, he became even more stress and suffered from slight mental illness. There was
a loss of enjoyment and amenities suffered by the Andrew and his family as a result of
misrepresentation and the breach of contract caused by William and WAH.

This is neither the case of what remoteness of damage nor is it mitigation. This is simply the
case of loss caused by the breach of contract promised by William and WAH. Andrew and
his family should be entitled to claim for compensation of at least $2,000 from William and
WAH. They can actually claim for more compensation as they have unwilling and
unnecessarily suffered during their trip. In the stand of law, the court can and should grant
favourable compensation to Andrew and his family, as they should deserve for a holiday
instead of coming back more tired and stress.

4|Page