Contract Law: Tours R Us

Sylvie booked a holiday from a travel agent called Tours R Us which resulted in the formation of a contract between the parties. However, she experienced numerous problems after the booking. First of all, as Sylvie’s son was ill, she wanted to transfer the holiday booking to her nephew. However, the travel agent did not allow this transfer. Secondly, Tours R Us wanted an extra payment of £50 because of a fault in the computers of the travel agency after the booking process. These two incidents caused the breach of the contract as the money was paid and a contract was formed between the parties. Apart from these, Sylvie was disappointed with her holiday because the hotel and the food served at the facility did not match with the brochure as
However, in spite of the fact that Sylvie gave a reasonable notice to the travel agent, the transfer of the booking was not permitted. Therefore, the travel agent did not comply with the regulations and a breach of contract was experienced. Similarly, as the agent required an additional money for the holiday because of a problem in the computers, there was another breach of contract. This is because the amount stated in the contract was different and the price was increased after the formation of this contract because of the fault of the agent. The court may award damages for the pecuniary losses suffered by Sylvie. This idea can be supported with the case of Wiseman v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. The case is about a man who was not allowed to get into a flight and was humiliated. The court held that the plaintiff can recover his pecuniary losses. According to this verdict, Sylvie can claim for the money paid for the booking of his son even though he did not attend the holiday and plus the extra money paid because of a fault in the computer system. A case that is relevant to another issue in the question is the case of Jarvis v Swan Tours Ltd. In the case, the claimant booked a two-week winter holiday. However, the holiday did not match with the description in the brochure and the plaintiff brought a case to the court for breach of contract. The Court of Appeal awarded damages to the claimant for the loss of the facilities and for the loss of enjoyment. This decision established the legal principle which states that damages for non-pecuniary loss can be awarded if there has been a loss of enjoyment. When this principle is applied to the question, it can be seen that Sylvie and her family experienced loss of enjoyment. This is because the