Hotel advertised rate by mistake... Now asking us to pay the difference!

naedanger

ShootForTheMoon wrote: »

I totally understand why they are doing it and would hate for a member of their staff to have a hard time over a mistake...

I've had no joy finding T&C's, however, on 26th Jan, we received an email stating the following:

We are pleased to confirm your reservation for 1 Deluxe Room for the above dates departing 20 January 2017 at GBP 50.00 per night. Includes accommodation, breakfast, a 25 minute Spa treatment per person, £35pp towards dinner. Rooms are available from 2.30pm, but should you choose to arrive earlier you are welcome to enjoy other areas of the House and its grounds. Check out time is 11.00am on the day of your departure.
Your confirmation number for this reservation is: 12823SB001645

To me, this is where the contract is formed, although I am no expert on civil law... I haven't had chance to ring yet, but when I do maybe I will request they email me a copy of the T&C's and chance my arm!!

Thanks again for the replies!!

I think the wording about £35pp towards dinner starts to move the price of £50 into the area of a manifest error, especially if the £50 per night was not £50 per person per night.

glentoran99

naedanger wrote: »

I am not sure I understand your point.

The other party does not dispute the price advertised was £50. If the contract was formed using this price then I am saying the other party may argue that the price was a manifest error.

Im possibly misunderstanding a manifest error, from my reading of it its were two parties are disagreeing what was agreed

naedanger

glentoran99 wrote: »

Im possibly misunderstanding a manifest error, from my reading of it its were two parties are disagreeing what was agreed

I don't think it is where two parties are disagreeing what was agreed. I think that would just be a dispute over what was agreed.

My understanding is that a manifest error in a contract is an error one party made in that contract that they can successfully argue was patently and indisputably an error.

So if a car dealer contracted to sell you a brand new car for £5 that would, in normal circumstances, be likely to be regarded as a manifest error. (But in very rare circumstances it might not e.g. if they had been advertising that they would sell one car this week to one lucky customer at £5 as a special once in a lifetime deal, to celebrate their 20th anniversary, then they may not be able to argue it was a manifest error, even if they intended the price to be £5000.)

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Let's imagine that you keep on about this until in the end they agree to let you stay for £50.

Can you imagine how relaxing your stay will be? And how warm your welcome will be? Not to mention the food.

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

I am not sure I understand your point.

The other party does not dispute the price advertised was £50. If the contract was formed using this price then I am saying the other party may argue that the price was a manifest error.

A manifest error relates to a documentation/contract error where the 2 parties are in agreement and the contract is wrong - at least in UK law, I believe it has a completely different meaning in US law (as an error that is obvious and warrants reversal on appeal).

This is a unilateral mistake - where one party is mistaken as to the terms of the contract and the other party was aware or should have been aware that it was an error.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

A manifest error relates to a documentation/contract error where the 2 parties are in agreement and the contract is wrong - at least in UK law, I believe it has a completely different meaning in US law (as an error that is obvious and warrants reversal on appeal).

This is a unilateral mistake - where one party is mistaken as to the terms of the contract and the other party was aware or should have been aware that it was an error.

I don't think you are correct. Have you any link to support your view that a manifest error in a contract is one where both parties are in agreement and the contract is wrong?

Also if a party made a simple unilateral mistake then that could not of itself entitle them to unilaterally change the contract. (I may have made a mistake agreeing to pay £x,000 for a car, as I could get it cheaper elsewhere, but that would not entitle me to have the contract altered.)

wealdroam

naedanger wrote: »

Manifest error is an error that is obvious and indisputable, that warrants reversal on appeal. It is an indisputable error of judgment in complete disregard of the facts of the case, the applicable rule or law and credible evidence. [I am not saying this is the legal UK definition.]

Your definition is cut and pasted directly from USLegal.com.
I do note your disclaimer, but that doesn't help anyone.

naedanger

wealdroam wrote: »

Your definition is cut and pasted directly from USLegal.com.
I do note your disclaimer, but that doesn't help anyone.

But have you any reason to believe the English (or Scottish) Law has a legal definition far removed from normal usage of the word "manifest"?

foxtrotoscar_2

naedanger wrote: »

But have you any reason to believe the English (or Scottish) Law has a legal definition far removed from normal usage of the word "manifest"?

Does English or Scottish law use the term at all?. The fact that USA law does is not pertinent as we are in the UK. If you are going to quote something you really should make sure it applies and do the legwork yourself. The word fanny means two totally different things in the UK/USA.

antrobus

unholyangel wrote: »

....This is a unilateral mistake - where one party is mistaken as to the terms of the contract and the other party was aware or should have been aware that it was an error.

Hartog v Colin & Shields (1939)

The court held that in the circumstances, the claimant could not reasonably have thought that the defendants’ offer matched the defendants’ true intention for the price (as the terms, including price, had already been discussed). Therefore, the claimant must have realised the defendants’ error. As the error concerned a term of the contract and one which was significant, then the contract was rendered void.

http://www.cips.org/en-GB/Supply-Management/Analysis/2012/January/Classic-Court-Report-Hartog-v-Colin--Shields-1939/

That would seem to cover it.