Hospitality Law Chapters 4 and 5 Assignment Questions and Answers PDF

Preview

Summary

Michael Traud ...

Description

Hospitality Law Chapters 4 and 5 Assignment Questions:

1. In response to a telephone inquiry, Vincent's Tree Service offered to trim an apple tree on the lawn outside the front lobby of the Olde Tyme Prime Rib restaurant, for a fee of $500. Mr. Wilbert, the restaurant's manager, agreed to the price and a start date of Monday. In response to a telephone inquiry, Vincent's Tree Service offered to trim an apple tree on the lawn outside the front lobby of the Olde Tyme Prime Rib restaurant, for a fee of $500. Mr. Wilbert, the restaurant's manager, agreed to the price and a start date of Monday. At noon on Monday, Vincent's informed Mr. Wilbert that the job was completed. The tree trimming went fine, but a large amount of branches and leaves from the tree were left neatly piled near the tree's base. When Mr. Wilbert inquired about the removal of the debris, Vincent's stated that removing the debris had never been discussed, and was not included in the quoted price. Mr. Wilbert agreed that the topic of removal was never discussed, but stated that it is generally assumed that when a company trims a tree, it will remove the brush it generates; therefore, he refused to pay until the brush was removed. Which party's argument seems valid? Why? How would you suggest the issue be resolved between these two contracting parties? Your first instinct may be to hit Vincent with one of the branches that he cut down, but then you would just end up in jail for assault and battery. If, in fact, the agreement was just for trimming, then Vincent is probably right even though you believe that the removal of the trimmed branches and brush was implied in the agreement. This is why we emphasize writing down the agreement and thinking carefully through what it is you are contracting to do and contracting to receive prior to signing an agreement. The recommendation might be different if you had contracted with Vincent’s Tree Service previously and removal had never been discussed, yet removal had always occurred for the agreed upon price for the trimming. That would show a pattern or a course of conduct and you would probably be entitled to rely upon that past conduct to believe that in this instance Vincent’s would also remove the brush and branches. 2. Joanna Hart was offered a position as Director of Foodservice for the independent school district of Laingsford. She received a written offer of employment on the first of the month, with a stipulation that the offer would be in effect until the fifteenth of the month. If Ms. Hart were to accept the employment offer, she would have to sign the employment contract, and return it to the Laingsford Superintendent of Schools before the offer expired on the fifteenth. Upon reading the details of the contract, Ms. Hart felt that the salary identified in the letter was too low, and thus she adjusted it upward by $5,000, initialing her change on the contract copy. She then returned the offer letter to the Schools Superintendent with a cover letter, stating she was pleased to accept the position as detailed in the contract. The contract arrived by mail in the

office of the superintendent on the fourteenth of the month, at which time, the Superintendent called Ms. Hart to express his regret that she had rejected the employment offer. During the telephone call, Ms. Hart realized that the Superintendent would not accept her salary revision proposal, so instead she verbally accepted the position at the original rate of pay. The Superintendent, however, declined her acceptance, stating that the original employment offer no longer existed.

Does the school have the legal right to withdraw its offer of employment? Why or why not?

It is clear in this situation that Joanna, rather than accepting the offer, made a counteroffer. Therefore, it is now totally up to the owner, in his or her sole discretion, whether or not to accept Joanna’s counteroffer. The owner is right when he or she tells Joanna that she rejected the offer. By making a counteroffer the first offer is rejected. In this instance, it is up to the owner to decide whether or not he or she is still interested in having Joanna as the manager at the originally proposed salary. 3. The Smoking Bones BBQ restaurant serves an excellent spinach salad as an accompaniment to its popular chicken and rib dishes. Michelle Brennan, the restaurant’s manager, purchases, from a local vendor, all of her produce, including fresh spinach used in the salads. Unfortunately, one of Michelle’s guests becomes ill after eating at her restaurant. The source of the illness is traced directly to the fresh spinach used in the restaurant’s salads. In fact, upon further investigation, it is determined that the spinach, when delivered to the restaurant’s produce vendor, was already infected with E. coli bacteria that matched a strain identified in cattle manure used to fertilize the spinach field. According to the UCC, a seller has a responsibility not to sell defective products. Who, in this example, is the seller? Assume that you were the guest sickened by the bacteria. Who do you believe should be held responsible for the damages you incurred? What specific steps could Michele take to help prevent incidents such as the one described here from reoccurring in her restaurant? 1. The restaurant is the seller to the customer who became ill. The local vendor is the seller to the restaurant. 2. There are three possible sources of recovery: the restaurant, the distributor of the spinach, and/or the manufacturer/grower of the spinach. 3. list.

Review the vendors’ sanitation practices and only do business with the vendors on an approved 4. Lauren State was a guest at the Boulder Inn, a mid-priced hotel in an urban area. When she checked into the hotel she inquired about the availability of a workout room. Upon receiving

assurances that the hotel did indeed have such an area, Ms. State checked into the hotel, put away her luggage, changed into workout attire and proceeded to the workout area. Upon entering the workout room, she noticed a sign prominently posted near the entrance to the workout room stating: “Hotel Not Liable for Any Injuries Incurred During Workouts.” According to her attorney, Ms. State lifted deadweights for approximately 10 minutes, and then mounted a treadmill. As an experienced treadmill user, she started slowly, gradually increasing the treadmill's speed. Shortly after beginning the treadmill workout, Ms. State fell backward into a plate-glass window that was approximately 2 feet behind the treadmill. The shards from the glass severely injured Ms. Statte. Ms. State's attorney claimed the accident was the fault of the hotel because the treadmill was too close to the window, and the hotel neglected to outfit the window with safety glass. As its defense, the hotel pointed out the presence of the exculpatory clause sign, which was clearly posted, and which Ms. State agreed that she read prior to beginning her workout. Who is liable?

Do you believe a guest who has agreed to be responsible for her own injuries during a workout has also agreed to be responsible for them in the presence of significant negligence on the part of the hotel? As the hotel manager, how might you resolve this dispute? Could a lawsuit have been prevented? This situation points out the problem with operators relying solely on exculpatory clauses to protect them in the event of an injury. As stated in the chapter, courts are very reluctant to fully enforce these clauses particularly if it can be shown that an operator was negligent. In this particular instance, it is probably foreseeable that someone might fall off a treadmill and into the glass window—particularly since the treadmill was placed so close to the window. The manager would probably have little ability to influence the outcome of the lawsuit other than to follow the guidelines of the insurance company and the attorney appointed to represent them. Workout areas can be dangerous places. The equipment needs to be placed in the facility properly and closely monitored....