Kangarroo Court In Session

[deborahann]

booked a hotel for the boat show £115 via internet, get there, no booking, can I have the same internet rate if I can definately prove I did the booking at the lower £115 PER NIGHT rate. Think well definately booked it, so no problem, when I get home & I can prove it, no damage done, will get a refund between the two rates.

Ah ha, do this and no refund, had for 30 YEARS told every hotel I checked in to my surname, same as ex husbands, no problem, except I had like 50% UK population changed partners, and booked the room in his surname, honestly never thought of this. So its deemed our fault, well my fault. Hotel say (well they would) they had the partners booked room empty for the night, whilst we took another room (after being promised said refund) at a 3rd higher price. I argue, well we would have gone elsewhere but for the promise of a refund between the two room rates. We have ended up paying for 2 rooms one at the higher price and one at the lower price, we actually slept in one room.

Now we know that we are in the wrong cos not realising we had booked under one name then tried to register under another. What should the Hotel do!!

At the time the hotel said that their web site had crashed two times since booked, so at the time we & hotel staff both thought this was the reservation problem! So didn't really pursue the problem with their check in staff.

So cost us. One room at £115 and one room at £155 a very dear price could have stayed at the dorchester !

And wheres the bloody poll (ie voting) thingy gone!!!

 

[BrendanS]

Errm, your fault methinks. You booked room under a name, blamed them sort of, but they weren't at fault. No way they could sort problem given the information you gave them.

 

[hlb]

Bugger. Thort we might get sympathy here!! Was a bit of a cock up, but not intentional. Thort you at least would be on our side!!!!/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[BrendanS]

Uhmm, lots of sympathy for wasted money and def on your side, but can't see what hotel were supposed to do, having put aside two rooms, only one of which used.

still, when I went to London Boat show this time last year, also booked two rooms, and only used one of them, and I'm still going out with her! <ggggg> and didn't dream of asking hotel to refund one of rooms as I felt I'd got my moneys worth /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[jimi]

Guilty as charged

..

right where's my spanking mistress!

 

[Dave_Snelson]

Trouble is...

...that the boat show thing is a sellers market. In other words, they can do what they like - take it or leave it.

On a damp Feb day with bugger all going on, they would have probably taken you in with open arms at any price.

 

[ArthurWood]

Obviously your fault and no obligation on part of hotel to pay up. You potentially cost them money.

 

[jfm]

Statement on behalf of the plaintiff

I disagree M'Lud. All members of the 6-strong team of Counsel for the Hotel have misdirected themselves and failed to think at all laterally.

The only error commited by the HLBs was that they - in innocent good faith error - failed to take up their booking for a room at £115 made via the internet.

They accept this error was their fault and they are happy to pay the hotel whatever the hotel's losses were in respect of their error. This case isn't about who's right or wrong, or "what was the hotel supposed to do". It's about quantum of losses. So, would the Court now turn its attention to establishing the quantum of the hotel's £££ losses please?

Ah, so the hotel wasn't full that night then? So not-full in fact, that the HLBs walked in off the street with no reservation (as far as the hotel thought) and were given a room immediately, at the £155 rack rate. So, the hotel has not lost anything at all, as the £155 room taken by the HLBs would - on the evidence - have been empty if the HLBs hadn't taken it. Indeed the Hotel hasn't lost £££ at all, it has gained, by £40! Yes, the hotel would have been £40 worse off if the HLBs had honoured their internet contract (which, I repeat was not breached in bad faith) and taken the internet room.

So Hotel, you have attempted to retain £115 of HLB's money which came into your possession in consequence of an innocent good faith error which led - admittedly - to the breach by HLB of their £115 internet contract. You are entitled to be reimbursed your your losses, but you sustained none and you know you sustained none. Indeed, even after returning the 115 demanded you will have profited by £40 from HLB's error. HLB claims against you if not in contract, then in equity.

M'Lud you are repsectfully asked to oder the disgorgement of Hotel's unlawfully retained so-called "profit" of £115.

Judge: The HLBs made a mistake. But the hotel was £40 better off as a result. Thus no damages are due to the hotel so better for them to keep quiet and not complain about HLBs mistake. Play the advantage, a referee would call it. Order granted, hotel to reimburse 115 to HLB

(Um this is not watertight but seems to fly a bit, after only thinking about it 2 minutes. I could be worng. Been a while since I read contract law. We really need Observer, he's bang up to date. PM him and askim to read this thread. The above is much shakier if internet booking was contracted with a diffrent company from the hotel walk-in booking)

 

[hlb]

Re: Statement on behalf of the plaintiff

I thank the eseemed council for his elequent deliverence. The said hotel has said that it will credit £40 being the difference between the £115 and the £155 paid at the door, however as our esteemed friend says, this is hardly enough as we were done rotten at the bar and paid £££££ that wot we would never have spent and even got a bit pissed far earlier than intended, thus ruening the latter party. had we known the outcome of this unfortunate event we would not have stopped in the miserable hotel but found a doss house down the road, not encumberant with the evils of strong drink. I feel that in this event, that the hotel is in breach of it's duty of care to it's guests. Not only that, but smoking was allowed in the bar and I suffered from smoke inhilation, my own I will admit, but maybe some one elses as well. The bloody place was a death trap and I submit this to the court.

£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[Observer]

Re: Statement on behalf of the plaintiff

I depart, with caution, from m'learned friend's analysis. It seems to me you made two contracts. The first by way of internet booking and the second when you turned up. The second contract was entered into under the misapprehension or mistaken belief that the first contract had not, in fact, been made. It is important to note that this was not a 'mutual' mistake. It was a unilateral mistake. You thought the first contract had not been made whe, in fact, it had. The hotel had knowledge of the first contract (it had a reservation in the other name) but had no reason to connect you to it because you gave a different name. You were, as far as they were concerned, a different person.

With respect to the first contract, I don't see how you were in breach, so the question of damages does not arise. What you did (as a result of your mistake) is fail to require performance by the hotel of the first contract.

There are remedies for contracts entered into by mistake but, in the case of unilateral mistake, the remedy of rescission (which would get you back the price of the internet contract) is not available unless you can show that the hotel knew or should have known of your mistake (which clearly isn't the case).

So I think you're stuffed. I think your only hope is to look at the hotel's cancellation policy? Does it allow for a part-refund for 'no-show'?

 

[jfm]

Further statement on behalf of the plaintiff

Ah but it was arguably a mutual mistake. HLB had already made a booking, and both he and the hotel knew it, it's just the name mix up obsured the fact. So a mutual mistake. In response to the whether hotel "ought to have known" aspect, well yes it ought. Both MLB and Ms Hann's names were given at the checkin so the hotel ought - by expending some modest effort admittedly - have spotted the error. I submit, ahem somewhat optimistically, ahem.

The plaintiff would now like to introduce the doctrine of unjust enrichment. A good faith mistake occured and we could debate blame. No loss was suffered by the hotel. Rather, the hotel has received money for a room that was not occupied, and which would not have been occupied in any circs because the hotel wasn't full that night, m'lud. So the hotel would be unjustly enriched if it were to keep the £115

Indeed the hotel has already onstructively agreed this. It undertook to HLB to return the 115 if HLB could prove he already made a booking. So, the hotel constructively accepted it shouldn't be unjustly enriched. HLB did subsequently prove it. However it transpires he used a different name, but in the circumstances that ought not, equitably, to affect the outcome in this particular case.

All submitted optimistically in the hope the judge will fall for it..... /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[EME]

Re: Further statement on behalf of the plaintiff

AArggh but sod the law my learned friends. having beeen involved somewhat in 2 internet travel companies ( one of which was a hotel engine), I think it could be proven in court that hotel staff know that internet bookings and PMSs are mutually incompatible. Indeed well over 50% of so called internet bookings make no 'booking' at all but generate daft bits of paper or RTPs which are sent to hotels.

Consequently if the Good Lady and the thing she hangs around with called hlb weren't so honest they could undoubtedly blag it out as they could say but we gave you that name too....see. Given hotel reception staff lack of faith in internet booking systems they would undoubtedly say.... oh did we? oh well you know what internet booking thingies are like we get loads of problems and dig damn big hole for the hotel.

Anyway NO WAY was London full that night .. nor I bet that hotel ,,, so a decent bit of CService should be performed after all .. returning the £115 ( not the £155 ) would seem equitable and as Lord Denning said .. The Law is ...

 

[hlb]

Re: Further statement on behalf of the plaintiff

Well thats wot they said. Site had crashed at least twice. So we thort Humph. Crap site. So did not ask or think about it any further. Just thort there tinternety thingy dint work. Cos they sed so!!