A Brawl in Mickey's Case

Murphy vs Holiday Inn

Murphy is wrong in suing Holiday Inn for the negligence. The issue in hand is whether the terms of the agreement institute a suitable principal-agent relationship. The license did contain provisions permitting Holiday Inns to regulate the architectural style of the buildings as well as the type and style of the furnishings and equipment, however it did not give the defendant, Holiday Inn, any control of the day to day operations of Betsy-Len's motel; therefore, it does not constitute any control over the definition of agency. That said, the regulatory provisions of the franchise contract does not constitute control within the definition of agency and therefore Holiday Inn is not liable. Holiday Inn has no control over the day-to-day activities and work, but instead exercises more control over the appearance of the hotel. Therefore, I would think Betsy Len would be liable and not Holiday Inn.

Murphy vs Holiday Inn

Murphy is wrong in suing Holiday Inn for the negligence. The issue in hand is whether the terms of the agreement institute a suitable principal-agent relationship. The license did contain provisions permitting Holiday Inns to regulate the architectural style of the buildings as well as the type and style of the furnishings and equipment, however it did not give the defendant, Holiday Inn, any control of the day to day operations of Betsy-Len's motel; therefore, it does not constitute any control over the definition of agency. That said, the regulatory provisions of the franchise contract does not constitute control within the definition of agency and therefore Holiday Inn is not liable. Holiday Inn has no control over the day-to-day activities and work, but instead exercises more control over the appearance of the hotel. Therefore, I would think Betsy Len would be liable and not Holiday Inn.