⦿ CASE SUMMARY OF:
Amana Suits Hotels Ltd v. PDP (2006) – CA
Amana Suits Hotels Ltd – APPELLANT
People Democratic Party – RESPONDENT
(2007) 6 NWLR (Pt.1031) pg.453
⦿LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:
Abdu Aboki JCA
The Appellant sued at the High Court claiming the sum of N1,831,500 being the total cost of 60 rooms reserved by the plaintiff/appellant for the defendant/respondent for 4 nights at the request/instruction of the respondent. The brief facts of this case are that the respondent by a letter dated 13/12/2002 (Exhibit 1) requested the Appellant to reserve all rooms in its Hotel from the 2nd to 6th January 2003. The letter also requested the Appellant to forward the available rooms and their cost implication. The Appellant wrote to confirm the availability of sixty (60) rooms, their location and gave their cost estimate at N1,831,500. The appellant requested that payment be made for the rooms immediately to enable it prepare for the respondents guests. Two officials of the Respondent were said to have inspected the rooms on the 31st December 2002 and 1st January 2003. The Respondent did not send any of its guests to occupy the rooms from the 2nd to 6th January 2003. The Appellant sent its bill for the nights that the rooms were reserved to the Respondents for payment, but the Respondent rejected the bill and refused to pay. The Respondent claimed that during the inspection of the room, it found them unsuitable and that its decision to outrightly decline to take the rooms was expressed in the presence of the Appellant’s Sales Manager. The Appellant on its part said that there was no official letter of cancellation of reservation or any official correspondence sent to it by the Respondent.
Whether from the contents of Exhibits 1 (enquiry letter by the respondent) and 2 (reply letter by the appellant which stated the number of rooms being 60 and their categories and rates and the total cost for all the rooms and the period for the reservation) a binding contractual relationship has been created between the parties.
Exhibit 1 was cleared off as an invitation to treat. It held Exhibit 2 to be an offer. Judgement was given in favour of the respondent. It held that there was never a binding contract between the parties.
⦿ NOTABLE QUOTES
It is permissible for an appellate court to either adopt the issue(s) formulated by the parties for determination or it can restructure or formulate such new issues which are consistent with the grounds of appeal and which in its opinion would determine the real question(s) in an appeal. – Amana Suits v. PDP (2006), per Abdu Aboki, JCA
An offer is a definite indication by one person to another that he is willing to conclude a contract on the terms proposed, which when accepted, will create a binding legal obligation. The offer may be verbal, written or even implied from the conduct of the offeror.
The offeree has the option of acceptance or outright rejection of the offer. – Amana Suits v. PDP (2006), per Abdu Aboki, JCA
The offeror must communicate his offer to the offeree so that he has an opportunity to accept or reject it. The offeree cannot be contractually bound to pay for services rendered to him without his consent or knowledge. – Amana Suits v. PDP (2006), per Abdu Aboki, JCA
An invitation to treat is not capable of an acceptance which will result in a contract. – Amana Suits v. PDP (2006), per Abdu Aboki, JCA
In a unilateral contract, consideration which is an integral part of any binding contract consists of actual performance in return for a promise (reward). The performance is referred to as executed consideration. – Amana Suits v. PDP (2006), per Abdu Aboki, JCA
It has been said in a plethora of cases that if pleadings are to be of any value at all, parties must be held bound by them. – Amana Suits v. PDP (2006), per Bode Rhodes
A plaintiff is bound by his pleadings and will not be allowed to set up a case different from his pleadings.
A party should be consistent in stating his case and consistent in proving it. He will never be allowed to take one stance in his pleadings, and then take a completely different stance during trial. – Amana Suits v. PDP (2006), per Bode Rhodes