2007-02-22 12:44:46 · 6 answers · asked by pvdya 1 in Travel ➔ Asia Pacific ➔ Malaysia
sorry, not familiar with the law. which clause(s) do you think is/are irrrelevant?
storekeepers act ada ka?
i wish karpal singh is here
-edit-
it's okay repairman, he' got difficulties understanding some legal terms. but at least you won't find some robbery stories
2007-02-22 13:34:40 · answer #1 · answered by ¥op 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The act was formed to regulate the standards and responsibilities of both innkeepers and guests. Such laws provide the foundation on which the practitioner can only further improve. If you are an innkeeper (or hotelier as it is called today), then you should set your standards to exceed what is required. The customer's satisfaction is paramount for repeat business. It is for you to exceed his/her expections. On the other hand, if you are a guest, and feel the provisions are inadequate (e.g compensation in event of loss), then highlight it to the relevant hotelier. I am sure a compromise can be reached as your interests are important to his/her future business and reputation.
2007-02-23 20:04:54 · answer #2 · answered by amn1717 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, the Act require some revamp. Disputable liabilities of innkeepers for the lost of guests' property need to be addressed.
2007-02-22 18:14:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I was an 'Innkeeper' if you like (ran a pub/restaurant in Malaysia for five years) but I'm not so sure what Dave Star is asking, err I mean answering. What 'invasion to one's privacy' is implied here?
Saya tidak faham/I dont understand, please tell me.
2007-02-22 18:27:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
That's invasion to one's privacy.
2007-02-22 13:20:44 · answer #5 · answered by Dave Star 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bo$$ i think we need karam singh wallia here as well....
Dave is drunk superman...
2007-02-22 13:50:10 · answer #6 · answered by Sarah 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋