Newlyweds Sam and Sienna had contracted with Sangria Hotel for their wedding reception. The couple was so unhappy with the service, claiming, among other things, that there was an unreasonable delay in the service of dinner and that certain items promised were unavailable. The hotel claims that, while there was a delay in the service of the meals, the same was occasioned by the sudden increase of guests to 450 from the guaranteed expected number of 350, as stated in the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract. In the action for damages for breach of contract instituted by the couple, they claimed that the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract was a contract of adhesion since they only provided the number of guests and chose the menu. On the other hand, the hotel's defense was that the proximate cause of the complainant's injury was the unexpected increase in their guests, and this was what set the chain of events that resulted in the alleged inconveniences.
(a) Does the doctrine of proximate cause apply in this case? (2.5%)
(b) Was the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract a contract of adhesion? If yes, is the contract void? (2.5%)
(a) No. Answer
Under jurisprudence, the doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delicts, not in actions involving breach of contract. The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation between him and another party. Rule
In the case at bar, Sangria H...
Already a subscriber? Log in below. Not yet a member? Subscribe.