In January Marcus, a CEO of a large corporation located in Canada, contacted Sam

Question

In January Marcus, a CEO of a large corporation located in Canada, contacted Samuel to secure a condo in Hawaii, for July1,2,3, 4 and 5th for his corporate annual meeting with the board of directors. The meeting generally is two half days, and on the last day there is a party to thank all for attending the annual meeting. Marcus wanted to continue his stay throughout the holiday weekend. As in the past, Marcus wants to have the party in the condo. Marcus called Samuel and was advised that for the specific dates he is requesting, there is only a 5 bedroom home available at $2,000 per day instead of the condo which was a rate of $1,000 per day. Marcus responded, "I don't need a five bedroom house. What if I only use one of the bedrooms?" Samuel replied, "That would be O. K. Since we want to do everything possible to satisfy you since you have been such a good customer, we'll let you have the house under the condition that you are using only one bedroom. We can honor a special price for $1,500 per day." Marcus said, "Thanks, and instructed Samuel to send the bill to his office." In late March Marcus was offered a new job and decided to take it, knowing he booked the house in Hawaii for his corporate meeting, and due to his new job, he is unable to attend the meeting. He offered the house to his friend, Thomas, who has always wanted to take a vacation to Hawaii. Thomas accepted. Marcus told Thomas: "It's $1,500 a day. After your stay, tell Samuel to send you the bill." Marcus neglected to tell Thomas about the condition that he could only use one bedroom. Thomas arrived and stayed in the house for the 5 days. At the end of his stay, Samuel sent a bill for $10,000, $2,000 per day to Marcus. Marcus has refused to pay the bill, and Thomas claims that he is only responsible for $1,500 per day. What rights, if any, does Samuel have against Marcus and/or Thomas? Discuss.

Explanation / Answer

Marcus and Samuel entered into a verbal contract , which is legal as per the law. But there is no concrete evidance that the term of contract existed or were agreed upon ,so it may not be possible for the court of law to enforce it.

Also, since the contract/agreement to use the one bedroom for $1500 per day was between Marcus and Samuel.There was no prior agreement that the room can be transferred to Thomas in case Marcus didnot want to stay in the room. Under the present scenario, since Thomas did not inform Samuel that he will be using the room ,there was no further contract/agreement between two of them to agree on $1500 per day price. In this case, Thomas should be charged normal tariff of the condo which is 2000 $ per day. So, Samuel has all the rights to charge Thomas $10,000 as per the normal tariff rates because he used the condo for 5 days.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.