CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS ANSWER INSTANTLY $9.50 Only
Mark and Iona booked a two-week package holiday in Madrid from the "Sunshine Getaways PLC" a travel agent based in the UK, paid for with Mark’s credit card. One week into the holiday, Iona and their two children Mandy and Hannif showed symptoms of food poisoning, as did many of the other guests at the resort. The symptoms lasted until two weeks after their return. Since their return Mark has seen a report in a national newspaper that the hotel in which they stayed has been closed down by the Spanish authorities because of ‘food poisoning caused by the negligence of the hotel staff.’ Having contacted “Sunshine Getaways PLC,” three days after their return, to ask how to make their claim, they were informed that all of the company’s documentation and brochures carry a normal disclaimer. This disclaimer they argued protects the company from claims relating to hotels and holiday camps which are outside the UK. They also suggest that Mark and Iona deal directly with the hotel. When Mark checks the brochure, he needs a magnifying glass, to read the disclaimer written in very small print at the bottom of the page. Before she became ill, Iona bought a gold necklace in the hotel shop, described in a notice on the shelf as being of “18 carat gold.” It was marked as a sale item reduced from its original price of €600. She really liked it and paid their asking price of €100 using her Barclaycard. There was a sticker on the display cabinet identifying a small scratch on the clasp. Iona realized that the necklace was not gold as her skin started to turn green when she wore it, as it was a cheap substitute. The clasp was also broken and it would not stay done up. When Iona complained to the hotel shop that the necklace was not gold, they pointed to a partly obscured notice and told her “Can’t you see we don’t give refunds on sale goods.” After a long argument they offered to take back the necklace and give her a credit note. Iona refused the credit note as she did not want anything else from their shop.
A week after they came home Mark sent their holiday photos to be developed. Two weeks later the photo processing company sent him a letter saying they had lost the photos; they offered Mark his money back and a free film. When he phoned to challenge this they pointed out a statement printed on the envelopes used to send the photos in, which said, “In the event of loss or damage to films, the company’s liability is limited to the cost of processing and a replacement film.” Mark does not feel that this is sufficient compensation and asks your advice.
Advise Mark as to his and Iona's rights in respect of the holiday, the necklace and the photographs. With regard to the holiday, they would like compensation for the physical pain and suffering caused by the food poisoning, the expenses incurred by three of them being ill for one week of the holiday and compensation for the non-material damage caused by loss of enjoyment of the holiday. Also discuss any possible criminal liability by the “Sunshine Getaways PLC”, arising from any possible breach of statutory or EU provisions.
