Assignment: Argumentation Assignment 1

Subject: Hospitality Law – HOSP8110

Student Name:
Student ID:
Due Date:
Murphy Elevator Co. v. Coco Key Hotel:
In Murphy Elevator Co. v. Coco Key Hotel, Murphy Elevator Co. they have filed a lawsuit
against Coco Key Hotel alleging that the hotel had breached a contract concerning elevator
maintenance services. The hotel demanded damages, claiming the plaintiff had not performed to
a sufficient standard. The hotel's termination of the contract was considered unreasonable by the
court, which decided in favour of Murphy Elevator Co. The case serves as a reminder of the
significance of carrying out one's end of the bargain and the penalties associated with terminating
a contract without cause (First District Court of Appeals, 2018).
I agree with the court's ruling in Murphy Elevator Co. v. Coco Key Hotel, where the hotel failed
to pay for elevator maintenance services, which allowed the elevator firm to recover its lost
revenue. The fundamental idea here is that the damaged party should be compensated with
damages in a way that would have left it in the same situation had there been no contract
violation.
The parties agreed that the hotel would pay for the lift firm's services, which was reflected in the
two-year lift maintenance contract. But the hotel broke the deal when, halfway through, it
stopped making payments as agreed. In this case, it is only just that the hotel pays the lift firm
the lost earnings it would have made if the contract had not been broken.
In addition to admitting the lift company's financial loss, the court also supports the idea of
making the party who suffered wholly by compensating lost earnings. Because it lays out the
repercussions for breaking a contract, this ruling acts as a disincentive to break agreements.
Opposite view:
On the other hand, one could argue that there is some validity to the hotel's suggestion that it
only be held accountable for payments owed up until the point at which the lift firm ceased
operations. This viewpoint would contend that the length of time that services were provided
should be closely related to the damages that are granted. This strategy might not, however, be
consistent with the core tenet of contract law, which aims to put the harmed party back in the
same situation as they would have been in had the breach not happened.
In this situation, restricting the damages to the outstanding balances until the point at which
services are discontinued could not adequately address the financial strain on the lift business. It
might not consider the possible lost future earnings because of the contract's early termination.
Thus, even while this viewpoint could appear to offer a more direct and concrete assessment of
losses, it might not fully accomplish the more general objective of making the harmed party
whole.
Overall, the equitable principles of making the harmed party whole, resolving the contract
violation fairly, and preventing future such conduct are all supported by the court's decision to
award lost profits in Murphy Elevator Co. v. Coco Key Hotel (Wilson, 2021).
References
First District Court of Appeals. (2018, 04 11). Retrieved from https://firstdistrictcoa.org/2018-decisions/:
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_3788196/File/releases/2018/C-
170251_04112018.pdf

Wilson, P. (2021). A Guide to Hospitality and Tourism Law in Canada. Emond Montgomery Publications.