MENU
Tee Ltd has contracted to use Vee Ltd's "Grand Hotel" for a business conference. Which of the following would not be regarded as a valid excuse for Vee Ltd for the unavailability of the hotel on the agreed date?
(i) The hotel was closed due to flood damage.
(ii) The hotel was double booked.
(iii) The hotel manager had arranged to have the hotel redecorated; the decorators had failed to complete the work by the agreed date.
Suggested Answer: C
Get Premium CIMAPRA17-BA4-1 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
24 comments · newest first
EL
Elke
10 months ago
Wait, how can they not finish decorating on time? Sounds fishy!
PA
Page
10 months ago
Redecorating is their fault too, not a valid excuse.
LA
Lauran
10 months ago
I think double booking is on Vee Ltd, not a valid excuse!
KI
Kiley
11 months ago
All three seem like poor planning on Vee Ltd's part.
LA
Latrice
11 months ago
Flood damage is definitely a valid excuse.
SA
Sabina
11 months ago
I lean towards (iii) being the answer since it seems like a lack of foresight on the hotel's part. But I could be wrong!
HU
Huey
12 months ago
I'm torn between (ii) and (iii) being valid excuses. I thought double booking was a common issue, but it feels like poor management.
VI
Victor
12 months ago
I remember a similar question where we discussed what constitutes a valid excuse. I feel like (iii) might not hold up since the hotel should have planned better.
JI
Jill
12 months ago
I think the flood damage would definitely be a valid excuse, but I'm not sure about the double booking.
MA
Maryann
1 year ago
I'm a bit confused on this one. I'm torn between (iii) only and (i), (ii), and (iii). The redecorating issue seems like it could be a valid excuse, but the flood damage and double booking also seem like they could be valid. I'll need to think this through a bit more.
MA
Malika
1 year ago
I'm pretty confident that the answer is (i), (ii), and (iii). All three scenarios seem like valid excuses for the hotel's unavailability, as they are outside of the hotel's control or due to unforeseen circumstances.
CA
Carin
1 year ago
Hmm, this is a tricky one. I'm not entirely sure, but I'm leaning towards (ii) and (iii) only. The double booking and the failed redecorating seem like valid excuses, but the flood damage might be considered an act of God, so that could be a valid excuse.
PE
Peggie
1 year ago
I think the answer is (iii) only. The hotel manager's decision to redecorate the hotel and the decorators' failure to complete the work on time seems like an invalid excuse, since it was within the hotel's control.
WI
Wilford
1 year ago
I'm going with (ii) and (iii). Double booking and unfinished renovations? That's just sloppy management. The hotel should be held accountable.
LE
Lemuel
10 months ago
They should have managed their schedule better.
SO
Sol
10 months ago
Totally! Unfinished renovations are just poor planning.
TI
Timothy
10 months ago
I agree, double booking is a huge mistake.
DO
Doug
11 months ago
Exactly! They need to be more responsible.
BE
Bettina
1 year ago
I think all options (i), (ii), and (iii) could be valid excuses depending on the circumstances.
CL
Clay
1 year ago
I think it could be both (ii) and (iii) as valid excuses.
JO
Josphine
1 year ago
Hmm, I'd say (iii) is the only valid excuse. The hotel can't just redecorate and leave their clients stranded! That's a pretty lame excuse if you ask me.
EA
Earnestine
1 year ago
I agree, (iii) is definitely not a valid excuse. They should have finished the redecoration on time.
FR
Francoise
1 year ago
I disagree, I believe it could also be (iii) only.
SH
Shaun
1 year ago
I think the valid excuse would be (i) only.