1. contracted time for room elapsed and not extended

2. bill not paid when due

3. proper notice given to vacate hotel

4. reasonable amount of time passed since checkout

5. bill has been settled and paid

personal property

acceptance of possession by bailee

bailment agreement

normal maintenance and repair

imminent danger

nonpayment

when requested to enter by guest

when rental period has expired and guest has no basis to believe it has been extended

§         Plaintiffs staying at defendant’s hotel came back to find they were locked out of their room

§         No warning given

§         Tried by court for $500 general damages and $500 punitive damages

§         No showing made by defendants to lock out plaintiffs

§         Judgment affirmed

§         Normal maintenance and repair

§         Imminent danger

§         Nonpayment

§         When requested to enter by guest

§         When rental period has expired and guest has no basis to believe it has been extended

§         Plaintiff frequently took business trips so he rented a room on a month-to-month basis at Rodeway Inn

§         Frequently allowed coworkers and wife to stay at it

§         One day wife went to stay, didn’t have key, so went to front desk to be let in

§         Barbara Womack, front desk clerk, refused entry because Mrs. Campbell could not prove she was a registered guest, nor was she authorized to access room

§         Campbell sued Womack but Womack had right to refuse access to room

o       Defendant convicted of possessing and aiding in concealment of $20,000 worth of stolen property

o       Defendant taken into custody based on counterfeit money

o       After 12 p.m., police were legally allowed to search defendant’s room because defendant had not paid for next day’s charges

o       Evidence found during search was admissible

o       No privacy rights were breached

o       After receiving a noise complaint, innkeeper called police for backup assistance

o       Officer and innkeeper approached room, hearing loud radio from within, and knocked several times without answer

o       Innkeeper opened door for officer, officer entered, and saw a man (who turned out to be Henning) unconscious on bed with narcotics in his pocket

o       Officer had reason to enter room, to handle disturbance

o       No substantial evidence in support of superior court’s order denying Henning’s motion to suppress evidence

o       A briefcase was found closed but not locked, and given to the assistant manager of Hyatt Regency Hotel

o       Two men inquired about briefcase and were taken aside to try to prove ownership

o       Police assistance were called and the men were asked to prove ownership, though couldn’t because identification was in briefcase

o       Police officer had man compare signature

o       While this was occurring, police officer noticed what looked like marijuana in briefcase

o       Although asked not to, officer searched and found marijuana, cocaine, and $7,000 cash

o       Defendant tried to suppress money and drugs on ground that search was illegal

o       Judgment affirmed

·         Gonzalez check into room at Hampton Inn and requested to not be disturbed after 9:00 p.m.

·         Around 10:00 p.m. Gonzalez’s mother called front desk after not being able to get a hold of him, requesting someone check on her son’s wellbeing

·         There was no response from Gonzalez and breaking glass was heard from his room

·         Police called, refused to respond to police, when police entered room altercation ensued, resisted arrest

·         Trial court did no err in dismissing Gonzalez’s claim

§         obtaining personal financial information about credit card holder and illegally using information for thief’s economic gain

o       General business law requires every hotel to post statement of charges

o       Waldorf-Astoria claims no violation in law

o       Refunds must be given

·         Defendant sent a package containing very expensive jewels to her parents who were staying in plaintiff’s hotel

·         Upon checking out, because they still hadn’t received package, defendant’s parents made agreement for plaintiff to refuse delivery of package

·         Plaintiff did not follow agreement, received package, held it for a month, sent it to USPO, where it was lost

·         Defendant sued for $10,231, judgment awarded 

§         $ franchise fee, % of sales

§         Reputation, recognition

§         Supplier

§         Right to use TM

§         Training

§         Adv

§         Mkt research

§         Exclusive territory

§         Access to suppliers

§         Security

§         Legal support

§         Quality control