dolution

Instructions: Read everything first before you answer anything. Legal Aspects in Hospitality and Tourism focuses on the different relevant laws to tourism travel and hospitality industry. The following cases happened in the industry in the past two decades. Aligned to our previous lessons, please used them as reference and basis in justifying your analysis. Take your time and answer it with your best knowledge. Case of Ballroom Dancing on Credit A socio-civic club in Batangas embarked on a fund-raising project, ballroom dancing in a prominent hotel in the province charging P1000 per plate. They commissioned Ms Eloisa Chua, a reputable event organizer, to fix everything on behalf of the club. The club members would pay their tickets to Ms. Chua’s company which in turn would settle all obligations to the hotel, the band, and audio technicians. The minimum guaranteed number of persons to attend was 300 as stipulated in the banquet agreement signed by Ms Chua and the hotel sales manager, Ms. Becky so. On the day of the event, the Agoncillo tent of the hotel collapsed due to strong winds and the hotel did not have any alternative venue. Ms. So, at the last minute, arranged the transfers of the venue to another hotel, 200 meters away from the original venue. Ms. Chua was flabbergasted because it was a far cry from the original plan. There was no better venue that they could think of The event pushed through but many of the 500 guests were disappointed with the substandard food and venue. Ms. Chua paid only P75,000 to the hotel. The balance of P225,000 was unpaid. This was reflected in the books of the hotel as long outstanding accounts receivable for 12 months Questions What are the remedies of the hotel? Can Ms. Chua be forced to pay the dull amount despite the substandard service and change of the venue? What is the best solution to amicable settle the dispute of the both parties? What are the possible consequences of this solution? Case of the Overpriced Airport The Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 was constructed by Japanese contractor Takenaka and was set to open in March 2007. However, the said airport facility seeking to address the capacity problem of the existing airport terminals has been besieged with two major problems. First, the alleged overpricing of the NAIA Terminal 3 by $140 million has led to a cabinet-level probe. Takenaka priced the project at $275 million. Fraport AG, one of the corporate outfits of the Philippines International Airport Terminal Corporation (PIATCO) consortium which got the contract claims that invested $425 million in the said projects. The award was later nullified by the Supreme court due the various changes in the concession contracts, which the High Tribunal declared as disadvantageous to the government. Following the High Court’s ruling, the government took over the NAIA3 facility, claiming that the project was tainted with massive corruption on top of violations of Philippine laws such as the anti-dummy law. The second problem of NAIA 3 is substandard construction reflected by the rapid deterioration of some parts of the unused terminal