Contract law involving a hotel and client A (Part 02)

It is a well-known notion that in order for there to be a contract, an acceptance must first be conveyed to
the person who made the offer. However, in this particular situation, A had already publicized their
acceptance of the challenge. In light of the decision in Household Fire Insurance v. Grant, the
acceptance is effectively notified upon posting. In order for this criterion to be applicable, however, it is
necessary that A's use of the post in order to accept the offer be consistent with reasonable expectations.
In light of the fact that the online booking form was not functioning properly in this case, it is probable
that it will be determined to have been an acceptable mode of acceptance.

Therefore, the contract between A and the hotel is considered to be in effect at this point in time.
According to the provisions of the contract, A will pay a total of £200 for hotel accommodations for the
duration of the contract. In the future, when the hotel is unable to provide him with a room at that price,
he will have the ability to file a claim against them for breach of contract damages. However, before it
comes up, there is a further contract that has to have some questions answered about it. When A arrives
to the hotel and finds out that his reservation form has not been received, he threatens to sue the
establishment. The answer from the management is that they will provide an offer of lodging for the
price of £250. It is conceivable that at some point in the future, the hotel would claim that the offer was
made under improper influence. It is a well-established concept in the law of contracts that a contract
may be nullified if it was obtained via the use of improper coercion. This indicates that the agreement
could be null and void in the event that the hotel is able to prove that the manager was coerced into
making the offer. A has indicated that they are OK with these conditions, and thus a new contract has
been established between A and B. A then finishes the second contract while on vacation at the hotel
where he first signed it.

A subsequently files a claim for compensation in the sum of fifty pounds. A has violated the contractual
agreement that states they would not pursue an action against the hotel, thus the hotel is filing a
counterclaim for damages against A. These two claims, on the other hand, are related to two separate
contracts; it would seem that each of these claims have some merit. It is conceivable that the equitable
concept of waiver sprang into play as a result of the formation of the second contract. That is to say, by

1
entering into the second contract, the parties, and especially A, gave up their right to file a claim for
damages. There is also the potential that the first contract was rendered null and void as a result of the
formation of the second contract. This would mean that the initial agreement could no longer be carried
out since the parties had subsequently agreed to the same agreement on different conditions.

Regarding the second contract, the hotel is well within its rights to seek compensation for damages for
A's violation of the agreement. It is very evident that he has breached the agreement he made in the
contract not to seek legal action against the hotel. There is a rule in contracts that states a claimant
cannot obtain damages for a loss that is a consequence of the defendant's breach of contract but is too
distant to be considered a direct result of the defendant's breach. In the event that the losses are a natural
consequence of the breach, as it would seem they are in this scenario, then the losses are recoverable.
Therefore, the hotel will have the ability to seek damages for A's violation of the contract term,
provided, of course, that it can prove that this agreement was a provision that was integrated into the
second contract.