This assignment will discuss the potential contractual claims Hassan may have against the garage where he bought petrol and against Business Travel PLC (BT), the company with which he booked his travel arrangements. The advice will consider the breaches of contract that have occurred and the enforceability of the contractual terms, particularly the exclusion and limitation clauses, by applying relevant principles of contract law and consumer protection legislation from England and Wales.
This response will be structured in two parts. The first part will address Hassan’s claim against the garage. The second part will analyse his claims against Business Travel PLC concerning the substituted hotel room and the personal injury he suffered.
Hassan v The Garage
The first issue concerns Hassan’s contract with the garage. Hassan paid for 50 litres of petrol but only received 1 litre due to a malfunctioning pump. This is a contract for the sale of goods, which is primarily governed by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SGA 1979).
Breach of Contract
There is a clear breach of an express term of the contract. By paying for 50 litres of petrol, Hassan formed a contract with the garage for the supply of that specific quantity. The garage failed to provide 49 of the 50 litres paid for, which constitutes a fundamental failure to perform their contractual obligation. Hassan is therefore entitled to a remedy for this breach.
Remedies for Breach
Hassan’s most straightforward claim is for the price of the petrol he did not receive. He is entitled to have the money paid for the 49 litres of undelivered petrol returned to him.
The more complex issue is whether he can claim for the consequential losses that resulted from the breach, namely the cost of a new flight and the professional detriment of missing the wedding ceremony. The availability of damages for such losses is determined by the rules on remoteness of damage, established in the case of *Hadley v Baxendale* (1854) 9 Exch 341. This case sets out a two-limb test:
1. Losses that arise naturally, “according to the usual course of things,” from the breach.
2. Losses that may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it.
Applying the first limb, it is necessary to ask whether missing a flight is a natural consequence of a garage failing to provide the correct amount of petrol. It is certainly a natural and foreseeable consequence that a car will run out of fuel if it does not have enough. If a person is driving to an important engagement, it is also foreseeable that they will miss it. In a modern context, it is arguable that driving to an airport is a common and foreseeable journey. Therefore, the cost of a missed flight could be seen as a loss arising in the “usual course of things.”
However, the garage might argue that they had no special knowledge of Hassan’s intentions, as per the second limb of *Hadley*. They were unaware he was travelling to the airport for a flight. For the second limb to apply, the defendant must have knowledge of special circumstances that would make the loss a likely result of a breach. In *Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd* [1949] 2 KB 528, the court held that the claimant could recover for general loss of profit, but not for the loss of a particularly lucrative dyeing contract, as the defendant was unaware of it. Similarly, here the garage was unaware of Hassan’s urgent need to catch a flight to the Bahamas for a celebrity wedding.
Nevertheless, a claim for the cost of the replacement flight has a reasonable chance of success under the first limb. The loss is not for a speculative business opportunity but for a direct and quantifiable expense incurred as a result of the breach. The courts might consider that missing a pre-booked travel arrangement is a foreseeable type of loss when a car unexpectedly stops on the way to its destination.
However, any claim for the loss of the “big” news story from missing the ceremony would almost certainly be considered too remote. This is analogous to the lost lucrative contract in *Victoria Laundry*. It is a special loss of profit that the garage could not possibly have foreseen. Therefore, Hassan is advised that he can claim for the cost of the 49 litres of petrol and has an arguable case for the cost of the replacement flight, but not for the professional loss.
Hassan v Business Travel PLC
Hassan’s contract with BT is for the provision of a service. As he is an individual booking travel, it is highly likely he will be classified as a ‘consumer’ under s.2(3) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015). This Act applies to contracts between a trader and a consumer and provides significant protection, particularly in relation to unfair contract terms.
Issue 1: The Substituted Hotel Room
Hassan booked a “luxury” room with a king-sized bed but was given a small “economy room”. This is a breach of an express term of the contract. BT will seek to rely on Clause 1 of the booking form: “Business Travel PLC reserves the right to substitute any alternative accommodation for that booked.”
The validity of this clause must be assessed under Part 2 of the CRA 2015, which deals with unfair terms. According to section 62(1) of the CRA 2015, an unfair term in a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer. Section 62(4) defines a term as unfair if, “contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.”
Clause 1 appears to create such an imbalance. It gives BT a wide, unilateral power to alter a fundamental aspect of the contract—the accommodation—without any constraints. The substitution of a “luxury” room with an “economy” room is a clear detriment to Hassan. The term does not even require the alternative to be of a similar standard. This lack of reciprocity suggests it may be contrary to the requirement of good faith.
Furthermore, Schedule 2 of the CRA 2015 contains an indicative list of terms that may be regarded as unfair (the ‘grey list’). Paragraph 11 of this list refers to a term which has the object or effect of “enabling the trader to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract.” Clause 1 falls squarely within this description. It allows BT to substitute accommodation for any reason, or no reason at all. Therefore, it is highly likely that a court would find Clause 1 to be unfair under section 62.
As an unfair term, Clause 1 would not be binding on Hassan. BT would therefore be in breach of contract for failing to provide the room that was booked. Hassan could claim damages for this breach. This would include the difference in value between a luxury and an economy room. He may also be able to claim damages for distress and disappointment. In cases concerning holidays and travel, the courts have been willing to award damages for loss of enjoyment, as established in *Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd* [1973] QB 233. Given that the small bed caused Hassan significant discomfort due to his height, a claim for loss of amenity and enjoyment has a strong prospect of success.
Issue 2: The Personal Injury
Hassan broke his arm after falling out of the small bed. He will want to claim damages for this personal injury. BT will try to defend this claim by relying on Clause 2: “Business Travel PLC does not accept responsibility for any personal injuries suffered by their clients.”
This is an exclusion clause, and its validity is governed by section 65 of the CRA 2015. Section 65(1) states: “A trader cannot by a term of a consumer contract or by a consumer notice exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.”
‘Negligence’ is defined in section 65(4) and includes the breach of a duty to take reasonable care or exercise reasonable skill in the performance of the contract. Under section 49 of the CRA 2015, there is an implied term in every service contract that the trader must perform the service with reasonable care and skill.
It is arguable that BT breached this duty. They provided a bed that was foreseeably unsuitable for a man of Hassan’s notable height (two metres), which was specified as a reason for booking a king-sized bed. The provision of such a small bed, leading to him falling out, could be seen as a failure to exercise reasonable care and skill. The broken arm is a personal injury resulting directly from this negligence.
Because section 65(1) prohibits any term that excludes or restricts liability for personal injury resulting from negligence, Clause 2 is automatically void and unenforceable. BT cannot rely on this clause to avoid liability. Therefore, Hassan has a strong claim against BT for damages relating to his broken arm. This would cover damages for his pain, suffering, and loss of amenity, as well as any financial losses incurred, such as medical costs or loss of earnings.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Hassan has strong legal grounds for claims against both the garage and Business Travel PLC.
Against the garage, he is certain to recover the money for the petrol he did not receive. He also has an arguable claim for the cost of his replacement flight, as this may be considered a foreseeable loss arising in the usual course of things.
His position against Business Travel PLC is even stronger due to the protections afforded by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The clause allowing for the substitution of his accommodation is likely to be deemed unfair and therefore not binding, entitling him to damages for both the financial loss and his disappointment. The clause attempting to exclude liability for personal injury is rendered ineffective by statute, meaning BT will be liable for the injuries Hassan sustained as a result of their failure to provide a safe and suitable bed.
References
*Consumer Rights Act 2015*
*Hadley v Baxendale* (1854) 9 Exch 341
*Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd* [1973] QB 233
*Sale of Goods Act 1979*
*Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd* [1949] 2 KB 528
