Legislatives_Frameworks

Legislative Frameworks The Macgregor Case Tutor: David Barling Gasson Student ID 21089892 Regina v MacGregor [2010] Magistrates Courts (David Barling Gasson) May 26th, 2010 Peter booked a room for a week at McGregor’s hotel. On the second night of his stay he invited his friend Beatrice to dinner in the hotel’s restaurant. At dinner Peter ordered Helford oysters for both of them. The oysters that were served to them in fact came from Whitstable and several of them were bad, as a result Beatrice had a food poisoning. McGregor’s has been charged under Trade Description Act 1968 S1, (1b) as the menu stated that the oyster’s were from Helford but in fact were from Whitstable. And under Food Safety Act 1990 S8 (1b) and (2a) as well as S14 (1), (2). For case supporting used Hobbs v Winchester Corporation (1910) case Held: McGregor was not guilty under Trade Description Act 1968, the fact that oysters was from different supplier had not been obvious, because hotel using both suppliers depended on a season and he could not possibly have know about it. But court held that McGregor is guilty under Food Safety Act as in England is high general health & safety standards and places which provides catering service for customer must strictly follow them of witch particular cases found that it is have not been done. Peter v MacGregor [2010] Crown Courts (David Barling Gasson) May 26th, 2010 Peter, the claimant, on arrival date took up an agreement with Macgregor’s Hotel by face to face communication. This contractual agreement terms were for a 7dys room stay. Peter had a in his possession a Olympus Camera for the value of £999.99, which at the point of booking, declared this by asking the booking staff member to look after this expensive camera. She, the receptionist, then refused to accommodate Peter’s request, so the claimant then had no choice but to resort to the trust of hotel’s safety by the means of the lock on his booked room door. On the 2nd night of Peter’s stay, he took a friend to dinner using the hotel restaurant services. He ordered, dinner for two, of Helford oyster at the value of £70 each. Both Peter and his friend were given Whitstable Oysters, with some proven not to be good for consumption. Minutes after the start of eating the wrongly served Oysters, the claimant friend began to show signs of discomfort and she eventually became ill. With the aid of Macgregor’s defected torn carpet, Beatrice Peter’s friend, fell caused serious damage to her arm (this will not be elaborate on as its being heard in another hearing). Due to these events, Peter felt is necessary to prematurely end his dinner with his friend in abandoning his meal. The claimant then returns to his paid Macgregor’s accommodation only to find that his £999.99 value camera had been stolen.  Having examined these facts, under the Proprietors act 1957 S3 (a, c) and schedule B, Sale of Goods Act 1979 S (13) and t under Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 S (13) the hotel is liable for full value of the camera, the full refund of his meal and the dis-service provided. This translates as the hotel and its staffs are negligible for the missing camera through a wilful act. The standard of care which the Macgregor’s hotel keeper is required to exercise in respect of the Peters’ property is greater than the ordinary careful man. There is no sufficient evidence to prove that the accused used all reasonable care in making sure he has safety systems in place to accommodate request for the safe keeping of guess properties. Therefore his liability is not restricted to negligence. This also includes the acts of employees. Thus, where the loss occurs due to the failure of an employee to perform his duties properly, or by the willful act of an employee, the hotelkeeper is liable. In support of this refer to the Case of: Kott and Kott v Gordons Hotels (1968) Refer back to the fact that “Peter, at the point of booking, asked the receptionist to look after his expensive camera but she refused, saying that there was no room in the hotel safe”. The fact remains that the hotel was unable/did not have the facility to accommodate Peter’s request, therefore the accused would exempt from the £50 pay out but would be required to pay the exceeding claimant costs for the full value of his camera and any other charges deem reasonable, such as the distress and disappointment caused as a result of Macgregor’s Hotel services. According to Jarvis v Swan tour Ltd (1972), in a proper case damages for mental distress can be recovered in contract; just as damages for shock can be recovered in tort. This could be further supported in the case study Jarvis v Swans Tour Ltd (1972) damages for disappointment were awarded where a breach of contract surrounding the quality of the food served at a buffet – damages received and awarded may extend to all guests present. Therefore Tortuous liability exists between Peter and the Macgregor hotel.  Held: As the facts states, Macgregor is undoubtedly liable under the Hotel Proprietors Act 1956, this same act that they display to the public and they are not just liable for £50 as they suggested. It is also clear that the accused breeched his contract with Peter which resulted to found McGregor’s Hotel guilty under Sale of Goods Act 1979 and Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Therefore it is reasonable and justified to request compensation for no less than the value of £1640 which includes the cost of the camera, the full refund of the distasteful, bad and incorrect oyster meals and the disappointment in the appalling service provided. Defending McGregor 2010 Judge D.B. Gasson On the second night of Mr. Peter staying at McGregor’s Hotel, he had a dinner in hotel restaurant with his friend Ms. Beatrice, during which he ordered Helford oysters for 2 persons without consulting Ms Beatrice. After consuming the food Ms Beatrice felt sick and left the table for a search of the lavatory. On her way there, suddenly overcame by dizziness, she tripped on a piece of torn stair carpet and fell heavily, breaking her arm. We defend our client under the following acts Food Safety Act 1990 S (20), which reads that in case of commission of an offence is due to an act or default of some other person, that other person shall be guilty of the offence (refer to Whitstable Shellfish Company) and S (21) subsection 3, which defends our client due to diligence. Trade Descriptions Act 1968 S (24) subsection 1, which defends our clients in any proceedings, if the commission of the offence was due to a mistake or to reliance of information supplied or to the act or default of another person. The cases which support us are: Tesco v Natrass 1972 Held: It was for McGregor’s to prove that Trade Description Act 1968 and Food Safety Act 1990 have not been breached. All possible and necessarily health and safety actions was made to prevent incident. Beatrice v McGregor 2010 Crown Courts (David Barling Gasson) May 26th, 2010 Food poisoning – Negligent – Duty of Care    Beatrice is a 40 year old, who works for Neurosurgery and Spine Associates as a Neurosurgeon. She is also a member of The Society of British Neurological Surgeons and is very well respected in her field. Beatrice is single and her monthly income is £15,000. On 15th February 2010 the respondent, Beatrice 40, joined a fellow friend for what turned out to be a repulsive meal which led the claimant to being awfully poisoned from Whitstable oysters in a hotel restaurant (McGregor Hotel) rating at 5* by the English Tourism Council, showing that the Hotel in conversation fits the highest international standards however unprofessional, claimant realises a dizziness, nausea and lactose intolerance due to an upset stomach related to Paralytic Shellfish Poison. Defendant must be charged under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 S2, (1) and S7. We may consider without a shadow of a doubt that McGregor Hotel has failed to comply with the Consumer Protection Act 1987 requirements and for that purpose has breached the act. After the claimant left the table in search for a lavatory, the claimant was overcome by dizziness, tripping on a piece of torn stair carpet leading the claimant to fall and brake her arm, which then has forced the claimant to take 6 weeks off work, not only has this incident lost the claimant an enormous amount in earnings and should be covered for, but has resulted in major depression. McGregor Hotel has failed to comply under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 S2 (2) and must be charged as guilty. We strongly believe that McGregor Hotel should have been able to reasonably foresee someone could have been injured by the torn piece of stair carpet and for that purpose McGregor Hotel has breached the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 In deciding the legal principles for the case of Donoghue v Stevenson 1933 AC 562 and British Railways Board v Herrington 1972 AC 877 Held: McGregor’s found guilty under Consumer Protection Act 1987 and Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. McGregor’s was failed to provide a reason of bad oysters that although was the direct reason of claimants injury and been charged of all claimed amount.