HomeAccessibilityIndependent approachTurnaround timeCommunication skillsFee structures
solicitors -  commercial legal work

Asbestosis
Building disputes
Compensation claims
Contract advice
Conveyancing
Debt recovery
Discrimination
Dismissal law
Employment
Harassment
Injury claims
Insurance
Libel
Litigation
Medical negligence
Negligence (general)
Planning
Professional negligence
Redundancy
Unfair dismissal
Wills & probate

LEISURE INDUSTRY

Package holidays - implied terms - duty of reasonable care and skill in provision of contractual services - mitigation of loss

[Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 3288) Reg. 6, Reg. 14, Reg.16.]

B brought a claim against a tour operator, C, with whom he had booked a two week holiday in Sardinia promised by C in its brochure to be "opulent luxury in a dramatic landscape and a beautiful villa with private garden and swimming pool". On arrival, B and his family found that the villa was infested with rats. B complained to C, who eventually offered smaller alternative accommodation with only a communal pool and no private garden. No compensation was offered. B declined the alternative accommodation and returned home. B contended that C was in breach of (1) an implied contractual term to exercise reasonable care and skill in the provision of holiday services, and (2) the terms of the Package Travel, Package Holidays AND Package Tours Regulations 1992. C argued that the rodent infestation was mice rather than rats and was unavoidable in that area. Further, that B, by declining the alternative accommodation, had failed to mitigate his loss.

Held, finding in favour of B, that (1) Reg. 6, Reg. 14, and Reg. 15 of the 1992 Regulations applied to the holiday contract; (2) C had failed to provide luxury, rat-free accommodation in breach of the implied warranties in the descriptive material in its brochure and had failed to comply with its duties under Ref. 14(2) and Reg. 14(3); (3) C had failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in the provision of contractual services, and (4) B's refusal of the alternative accommodation had to be judged by reference to the luxury holiday that he had booked. In the circumstances, he had acted reasonably and mitigated his loss, particularly as C's offer had not included an offer of compensation. B was awarded a sum representing the whole of the holiday lost and consequential losses, together with the sum of £2,000 for loss of enjoyment.

"Current Law" November 2001

E-mail us with details of your enquiry on private-litigation@humphreys.co.uk
Include your telephone number,
fax number and address.

Tel (0117) (international +44 117) 929 2662 
Fax (0117) (international +44 117) 929 2722




Relevant material

Technology & Construction - Letters of Demand
 
The County Court
 
Fast Track & Multi-Track Litigation
 
Lands Tribunal
 
MORTGAGES
 
LEISURE INDUSTRY
 
Women secure home rights in Lords test case
 
HOLIDAY FROM HELL THAT COST OAPS £14,000
 
SACKED TENANT FARMER WINS £300,000 AWARD
 
Covenants in restraint of trade; legitimate interests
 
ESTOPPEL
 
Night flight noise could cost £2bn in claims
 
Manager can keep repossessed farm
 


Humphreys & Co., solicitors Bristol



Click here for information about the work we do for commercial clients.

© Copyright Humphreys & Co., solicitors

Home Page