Charlie Jones Case
Please provide in paragraph format with the ILAC information of this case below.
The first issue is whether Charlie Jones can successfully bring a cause of action against Jennifer Hooley d/b/a Jennifer Tours, Windell Hotels, Inc. and Windell Travel, Inc. in federal court due to a breach of contract due to the misrepresentation of the accommodations provided. Under 28 USC Section 1332, through Public Law 113-31 the law provides that the federal district courts shall have the original jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy is $75,000 or more, and is between the citizens of different states. Since the amount Jones intends to ask is over that amount, and the corporations are registered in different states, federal court would indeed be the proper jurisdiction in which to file suit.
Although Windell Hotels, Inc. and Windell Travel, Inc. are not registered in the State of Colorado they had sufficient contact with the state by advertising their properties in the state and also entering into an exclusive sales contract with Jennifer Hooley d/b/a Jennifer Tours, a Colorado company. The Corporations would have sufficient knowledge that their properties would be advertised and promoted to the citizens of Colorado and therefore be falling under the jurisdiction of another state other than Delaware, where they are incorporated.
A second issue is the wording of the advertisement saying that the photographs and descriptions are not necessarily the exact accommodations that may be offered at the time of the arrival at the property. The UCC governs the context of contracts and states that various warranties and remedies are implied as a matter of law, even when the contract itself is silent. Under UCC Section 2-316, any disclaimer of implied warranties is not enforceable unless it is conspicuous. In other words, by bolding showing and describing certain rooms and offering an ocean view and so on, although claiming these may not be the exact rooms, still does not obviate the hotel from offering substantially what was advertised. One does not expect to be given the same room as a photograph in a newspaper, but is entitled to substantially what was offered and described and for which a customer paid. This “miniscule print at the bottom of the ad, blending with the pattern of the iron railing”, which made a short disclaimer to the effect that the amenities featured were not necessarily those provided, would not be sufficient enough to lead a buyer to believe he or she was not getting substantially what was promised and promoted in the advertisement.
A third issue is whether the contract with Jennifer Tours is valid because the tour with Jones was booked prior to her becoming a legal adult at age 18. A contract is voidable under the UCC by the minor, but if the minor reinforces the contract after the age of 18 it is no longer voidable. In addition, Hooley continued with the contract by not rescinding the terms after she turned 18 when Jones took his vacation. The UCC provides that after a reasonable amount of time, it is not voidable. Trying to void the contract after Jones took advantage of the contract terms and then intends to sue is not a valid argument and Hooley will not prevail.
Therefore, Jones could sue for breach of contract in the US District (federal) Court for the misrepresentation of the facilities and costs of the vacation, resulting in a breach of contract with the three above mentioned entities.
1.Jones wants to sue Jennifer Tours, Windell Hotels, Inc, and Windell Travel, Inc together in Federal court for his injuries as a result of the fall. Can he do so?
2. It would be easier for Jones to bring suit in Colorado State court, but he wonders if the court can get the Windell Hotel and Travel companies to come to Colorado. Can the court bring the defendants to Colorado?
3. Windell Travel and Windell Hotel’s both claim that they did not have a contract with Jennifer because she was a minor at the time of her dealings with Jones and that they are therefore not responsible to Jones. The contract was void. Jones can refute this argument because:
4. Jones wants to sue Jennifer’s mother personally because she has all the family money. Jennifer Hooley, the mother, says that she isn’t responsible because she doesn’t own the company anymore. Will Jennifer Hooley, the mother, win?
5. Jones wants to get his money back for the trip including the additional charges for those items not included in his “all inclusive” vacation. Under what contract theory or theories will Jones prevail in his suit?
Instructions: In six to eight sentences, please answer the following question:
Instructions: Frame a complete definition of the legal question asked and explain how the law applies to the facts. Suggested length is two to three paragraphs.
Jones brings suit against all the defendants, Windell Travel, Windell Hotel and Jennifer Travels for Negligence with relationship to his slip and fall. Explain the theory, the elements and how it would apply to Jones’ case. Will Jones be successful against all the defendants? Explain. Be sure to include any and all defenses if any that may lie for any or all of the defendants in your discussion.
The post Charlie Jones Case appeared first on Destiny Papers.