Booking or the hotel reserve the right to cancel for clear pricing errors with the example cited from their own terms being a $1 room. They do not claim a right of cancellation for arbitrary reasons.

It isn't at all clear that this is the same class of error. $4,500 that she paid is the normal price for the room, not a pricing error. Their "error", if it can be considered a pricing error, is that they accepted a booking without factoring in that the dates were possibly an event weekend where they could deviate from their normal pricing.

I don't accept the excuse of "it turns out that we can make more money than the standard rate we charged you" as an error, and I don't think any reasonable judge or arbitrator would see it that way either.

"[...] A5. Our values

1. You will:

[...]

- not use the Platform to cause a nuisance or make fake bookings

[...]

If you breach these Terms (including our values and our Content standards and guidelines) or fail to comply with applicable laws or regulations, we have the right to:

- stop you making any bookings,

- cancel any bookings you’ve already made

[...]"

She made two bookings, one of which she intended to cancel from the get go, in other words, it was a fake booking.

I'll bite though: I don't see what the definition of a "fake booking" is in there, but I would argue that knowing that you need one of two weekends, and fully intending to use the booking when that determination is made, does not make it a fake booking. A cancelled booking is not the same as a "fake booking", cancellation is a service that they offer (presumably for cases just like this, where exact ravel dates are still being determined) and she paid for. You can't offer, and upcharge, for a cancellation service and then claim that cancellation is not within your terms of service.

Additionally, the remedy for making "fake bookings", as described in the document you are citing, is that they will cancel your booking. They did not cancel, they attempted to 4x the price. So that section doesn't apply doubly. 1. She did not make a fake booking 2. They did not invoke that section in their reasoning, and they did not use the remedies described by that section.

Edit: Finally, you have chosen a section of the terms and conditions for a different country (GB) on a different continent that is neither the home of the hotel or the person making the booking, or the travellers accompanying the person making the booking. It is not just completely irrelevant from a textual perspective, but also completely irrelevant because it has no legal relevance for any of the parties involved.

2 bookings isn't a nuisance booking.

She had an intention of cancelling that was exactly 50%. In other words, she fully intended to use the booking, until she found out that it wasn't fit for her purposes, at which point she exercised the cancellation option that they charge more for.

If I pay extra for a refundable hotel booking option knowing that there is an equal chance of me using it or cancelling it, I don't think it is fake, it is simply uncertain. When I exercise an option for service that has been sold to me, I certainly don't consider that to be a nuisance. She was playing by their terms and conditions.

Given that they don't define what a "fake" or "nuisance" booking is in their terms and conditions, it is perfectly fine to argue that a booking made with an uncertain, but genuine, intent to use the service is neither "fake" or a "nusaince", especially given that cancellability is prominently advertised as a feature of the booking. What possible other purpose would offering cancellability serve if not handling uncertainty in travel plans.

But I know nobody would consider the two equivalent, so I must be mistaken. Right?

If the booking isn't fixed untill you showed up on the exact date at the hotel front desk then wouldn't that make making prior bookings moot