Paper Example on Four Seasons Washington Loses $1M Jewelry Case

Paraskevaides v. Four Seasons Washington, 148 F. Supp. 2d 20 was a case that entailed Thelma and Christine Paraskevaides losing their jewelry in Four Seasons hotel. The Paraskevaides lost jewelry worth $1,000,000 while in their room. Under the District of Columbia law liability statutes; there are different things, which both the Paraskevaides and Four Seasons hotel might have done wrong. The District of Columbia law states that a hotel is responsible for providing guests which safekeeping of personal property. This is one law that the Plaintiffs did not adhere to. There are several facts, which the court tends to use in such a case to come up with a fair judgment.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Question 1

One of the arguments associated with the case is that both Thelma and Christine Paraskevaides blamed Four Seasons hotel for losing their items. The discussion was that their personal belongings were locked up in their hotel room, and they failed to understand who and how they would be stolen. Moreover, they were also fast to conclude that they had followed all the rules and regulations in the hotel rooms. On the other hand, the Four Seasons hotel argued that they had followed the required District of Columbia liability laws.

There are a couple of wrongs that were associated with the Four Seasons hotel. First, as outlined in the District of Columbia liability laws, a hotel must provide the customer with a safe place to keep their personal belongings. The Four Seasons did precisely that though they forgot to offer notifications ad reminders in the guest rooms. Secondly, the District of Columbia law requires a hotel to put its limited liability for the client to prefer (Seaquist 2018). In this case, the Four Seasons hotel failed to adhere to the law hence only put the notice in the guest room and not public rooms.

A hotel in Nevada can be liable for theft of personal belongings in different ways, just like the District of Columbia liability laws, Nevada laws state that a hotel is responsible for theft if it did not place notifications of safe. The customer can also be liable if they did not put their personal belongings in the safes. This is one of the laws, which is similar to the District of Columbia liability laws. In accordance with the Nevada liability law, the liability of a hotel can never exceed the sum of $750 if the customer did not put his belongings in the safe (Seaquist 2018). The limitation is, however, not limited to a situation where the personal belongings do not fit in the safes. Amazingly, Nevada law states that hotels are not liable for the theft of cars within their premises. This law is one that distinguishes itself from the District of Columbia liability law.

Question 2

There are three main types of bailment. Each bailment has a different meaning in regards to the committed offense. The benefit of the bailor and bailee ensures that both characters benefit from an agreement. Thus, if a bailor agrees with the bailee to share a cost to repair a particular item. This, in itself, involves two parties working together to meet a specific objective (Clarkson, Miller & Cross 2014). It can also occur when a bailee gets an amount or fee for a service done. For instance, an individuals' product can get damaged by a restaurant or hotel setting. Instead of taking the matter to court, both parties can discuss how they could share the cost of repairing the item. Here, both parties exchange services.

For the sole benefit of the bailee, only one party is involved. This occurs when the bailee's acts in favor of the bailor. Thus, when a bailee offers to provide free services, which seem to benefit the bailor. One of the cases of the sole benefit of the bailor is when a restaurant offers its customers with coatrooms at a free of charge. The restaurant is always the bailee, and the customer is the bailee. The sole benefit of the bailee can also be experienced in a situation where the bailee does not expect any compensation from the bailor (Clarkson, Miller & Cross 2014). Unlike the benefit of the bailor and bailee, the sole benefit does not rely on both parties to exchange services. It only relies on the bailee or even in some instances, the bailor.

The sole benefit of the bailor occurs when a bailee experiences free services to him with nothing in return. One of the examples associated with the only interest of the bailor is a loan of a book taken from the library (Clarkson, Miller & Cross 2014). The librarian is considered a bailee who, in this case, does not need any compensation from the lender who is the bailor. Here, only one party, which is the bailor, benefits from the borrowing (Clarkson, Miller & Cross 2014). Another instance is when an individual who, in our case, is a bailor borrows an item from a friend for a short term use. The question might be something like a password or link to a particular website. The borrower is the only one benefiting from borrowing.

From a personal perspective, I have been involved in the sole benefit of the bailor and the bailee. There was an instance where a friend needed me to lend them some capital. He was at a point where he could not afford to return it with some interest in it. I have to give the money for them to get out of the trouble they were experiencing. Moreover, there was a particular instance where I had to borrow books from our school library for my projects. The librarian did not expect anything in return, which made it a suitable case for the sole benefit of the bailor.

Question 3

The main difference between an invitee and a guest is that the invitee is always there for the benefit of the property owner. The term invitee is used on formal occasions like weddings or any formal events. In law terms, an invitee is anyone who is invited to premises by the owner in cases of business dealings (Jennings 2013). A guest is someone invited by an owner of a particular premise with the aim of staying for a shorter period. The difference between a guest and an invitee is that a guest has a limited amount of time through which they are needed to stay within a given premise. An invitee, on the other hand, has no limitation on the number of days he can stay or visit.

A guest has rights such as the expectation of safe environments within certain premises. In this case, a guest has the right to experiencing security in hotels and restaurants. The owner of the property is liable for any damages that might affect the guest (Jennings 2013). As compared to the invitee, the hotel owner has no liability when it comes to the invitees' health. In addition, a hotel is not liable for anything associated with security. An invitee has the right to ask for compensation if the injury acquired was as a result of the negligence by the owner of the premise.

The main difference between a tenant and a guest is that a tenant is someone who signs an agreement with the owner of the property to live within his premises for an unknown period. A guest only requires reading the rules of certain assumptions that might be a hotel or a restaurant before enrollment (Jennings 2013). In most cases, the owner of the premises is not liable for any damages that might be experienced by the tenant. There are, however, different instances where a guest might be compensated by the premises owner and, at the same time, might not occur when it comes to the tenant.

To evict tenants, invitees, and guests, there are steps that need to be taken. Before removing a tenant, a property owner must know the law in his state. Each state has a different requirement when it comes to the eviction of the tenants. Another step required is to see if the tenant has broken any rule written in the agreement sheet. If any, the owner can simply give the tenant a certain period to prepare before moving out (Jennings 2013). If the said lease agreement does not go handy with the state laws, then the property owner might not have to evict the tenant immediately. Specific requirements must be followed to win an eviction case against the tenant. The landlord and tenant act provides a clear understanding of when an individual is considered fit for evacuation.

In conclusion, Nevada and the District of Columbia are known for their limitation laws in hospitality management. In real sense, the two have several limitation laws that appear to be alike. Moreover, there are different laws between Nevada and the District of Columbia. One difference is the commercial law in Nevada. The law states that a hotel cannot exceed liability worth $750 for a customer who did not put his belongings in the safe. There are different types of bailment: Sole benefit of the bailor, benefit of the bailor and bailee, and sole benefit of the bailee. Each bailment is known to offer a different purpose.

References

Clarkson, K., Miler, R., & Cross, F. 2014. Business Law: Text and Cases. Cengage Learning

Jennings, M., 2013. Real Estate Law. Cengage Learning

Seaquist, G., 2018. Study Guide to John E. H. Sherry, "The Laws of Innkeepers, Third Edition. Cornell University, Press