lOMoARcPSD|9966465
Front page report example for students
business management (Kolej Poly-Tech MARA BANGI)
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Nabil ilyas (nabililyas17@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9966465
UITM ALOR GAJAH, MELAKA
FACULTY HOTEL AND TOURISM MANAGEMENT
HOSPITALITY AND TRAVEL LAW
GROUP ASSIGNMENT
GROUP MEMBER
MATRIX CARD
NURUL NADIA BINTI SHAHRIFUDIN
2019247166
NUR NAZURAH BINTI ZULKIFLI
2019446096
NUR AFIQAH ALYA BINTI MOHAMED ARIF
2019241924
GROUP: HM111 4D
LECTURE NAME : MIMI SOFIAH AHMAD MUSTAFA
06 JUN 2021
Downloaded by Nabil ilyas (nabililyas17@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9966465
QUESTION
Celepang and Celepung went to Langkawi for their cousin’s wedding. They checked in
at BaqHang Hotel. Both of them brought valuable jewelleries to wear at the wedding.
Celepang decided to keep her RM30,000 jewelleries at the hotel front desk safe
depository. Whilst Celepung felt safer to just keep hers at the in-room safety box. Her
jewelleries were worth RM20,000. Both of them later went out to have dinner outside
the hotel.
When they came back to the hotel, they discovered that their room was ransacked and
the in-room safety box was forced open. Celepung’s jewelleries were missing. Celepang
rushed downstairs to the front desk to check on hers and found out that the jewelleries
were also missing.
Advise whether BaqHang Hotel could be held responsible for both Celepang’s and
Celepung’s losses.
Downloaded by Nabil ilyas (nabililyas17@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9966465
ANSWER
The issue started when Celepang and Celepung went to Langkawi for their
cousin’s wedding and checked in at BaqHang Hotel. The matter to raise in this question
is whether BaqHang Hotel could be held responsible for both Celepang’s and
Celepung’s jewelleries losses.
Firstly , Celepung kept her RM20,000 worth jewelleries at the in-room safety
box. After that she decided to went out for dinner and when she came back to the hotel
she found out that her jewelleries were missing because the box was forced open.
According to the law Under The Innkeepers Act 1952, it clearly stated that the
innkeepers has legal obligation to ensure that the guests and their personal belongings
are safe during their stay at the inn. Secondly, the innkeepers would only be liable for
the loss of valuables not exceeding the value of RM500. (S.5) However, the
innkeeper’s limit of RM500 for any loss or damage is inapplicable in these
circumstances, if the loss and or damage is caused by the innkeeper and or his
employees due to their negligence. Therefore, Celepung already sheltered her
jewelleries safely and the loss was not due to Celepung’s negligence. (Carpenter V
Haymarket Hotel Ltd (1931) 1 KB 364).
Secondly, Celepang decided to keep her RM30,000 jewelleries at the hotel
front desk safe depository. As for Section 5 Innkeepers Act 1952, the innkeeper
cannot refuse to accept for safe custody, any goods which the declared value is less
than RM5,000. If the innkeepers refuses, he or she is not covered by the limitation. If
the inkeepers accepts the goods that more than RM5,000 then his or her liabilty would
be an amount not exceeding the declared value. In this case, Celepang’s jewelleries
worth RM30,000 and the front desk accept the depository. It means the front desk held
Downloaded by Nabil ilyas (nabililyas17@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|9966465
responsibility to keep her jewelleries safe. Unfortunately, when she knew about
Celepung’s case, she rushed downstairs to the front desk to check on hers and
Celepang encountered the same thing as Celepung as she found out that her
jewelleries went missing.
To sum up, it is clear that BaqHang Hotel is indeed responsible for both
Celepang’s and Celepung’s losses. Therefore, the innkeeper have to pay back
RM20,000 to Celepung as well as RM30,000 to Celepang. It shows that innkeeper are
prove negligent where they are going to lose their protection under Innkeepers Act
1952.
Downloaded by Nabil ilyas (nabililyas17@gmail.com)