A few more dining plan questions

[Lewisc]

The part that says all TS credits for your family are pooled. The part that says the plan is flexible and can be used the way you want. The part that divides the credits into only 3 categories TS, CS and snack and doesn't further divide them into adult and credit.

I'm not saying Disney is encouraging you to take advantage of their generoisty, only that they allow it.

What part are you refering to? The part where it says children on the plan MUST order off the children's menu if one is available? I must keep skipping over the part where it states "even though you paid to have your child be on the meal plan at a reduced rate, we encourage you to use the plan as you see fit. Do not hesitate to treat some of your adult friends to a nice meal".

Again, while it does not specify that it can not be used the way you say, it also isn't 20 pages long stating many other ways it can't be used. Adult plan and Child plan, can't be much simpler. Disney tried to keep it simple, I think because that they believe that most people will use it in it's intended form. Again I dont think they'll change it because a small percentage of the people will use it to their advantage. But by all means keep rationalizing, at least you're convincing yourself.

 

[mickman1962]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671870734/103-4226061-7047825?v=glance&n=283155

 

[BAST]

Having now followed this argument for more time than I care to admit, I decided to review the four page brochure that WDW puts out detailing the DDP. At its most basic, this is a contract between WDW and the DDP user and as such is subject to the basic rules of contract construction. Since I spend my life drafting and reviewing contracts, I thought I would try to offer a lawyer's perspective on this great moral dilemma being played out on these boards.

First, WDW is solely responsible for the drafting of this contract. While it is not 20 pages long it does adequately explain the DDP and does contain a fair amount of legalese. On the matter being argued here (the use of pooled credits), this contract is ambiguous at best and arguably silent on the matter. By way of example, this whole matter could be put to rest if ONE sentence was added to the four page document: "Guests age 3 to 9 must use the Quick Service Meal and Table Service Meal credit alloted to them, these child credits are not available for use by adults." VERY SIMPLE.

I think this contract is ambiguous on the use of pooled credits within the same party. The contract states that "You can continue using meals any way you like...." It also states that you can "Use your meals and snacks in any order and in any amount throughout your stay..." It is fairly explicit on the items that are not included on the meal plan and on the restaurants that are not included. It does state that kids "must order from the child's menu when available." But it simply does NOT state that child credits must be used by children. SIMPLY PUT, I DO NOT THINK EITHER SIDE CAN ARGUE THAT THIS CONTRACT IS CLEAR ON THIS POINT.

Because the contract is ambiguous, you can then look to the conduct of the parties to determine how the issue is addressed. And on this point it is VERY clear that WDW allows pooled children's credits to be used by adults in the same party. It is also VERY clear that WDW could stop this tomorrow if it wanted to - it controls the DDP. THEREFORE, THE BEST (PERHAPS ONLY) ARGUMENT IS THAT THE USE OF POOLED CREDIT BY ADULTS IS PERMITTED BY THE DDP.

Since this is a contract between WDW and its DDP users that WDW can completely control, I simply do not understand why this becomes some great moral debate. But looking at the contract and the course of conduct between WDW and its DDP users, the moralists in this debate really have nothing to 'hang their hat on'. I for one will use the DDP as WDW permits. And if WDW changes the rules, I will decide at that time whether I will spend $100 a day on the DDP for my family of 4.

 

[slcmkh]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671870734/103-4226061-7047825?v=glance&n=283155

Mickman, every time you come up with a corker I don't think it can be topped. Yet you've done it again. I'm going to put this book on my Amazon wish list.

You are the man.

 

[slcmkh]

Since I spend my life drafting and reviewing contracts, I thought I would try to offer a lawyer's perspective on this great moral dilemma being played out on these boards.

Another great post and an enlightening perspective on the issue.

Even though I will still agree with mickman, twinsmama and others on that side of the house, I am tending to be a little more understanding of Lewisc and Pedro and their side of the issue when this is looked at from a legal and contractual standpoint.

Thanks for stepping in and offering your legal opinion.

Send us a bill.

 

[jonkatony]

Blast are you saying that Disney intends adults to use childrens credit as an implied term within the contract and that this outweighs the expressed term that differentuates between adults and children as in English common law?

If that is the case I would change my mind.

 

[Lewisc]

Actually the issue isn't even ambiguous. The Disney brochure makes no mention of adult or child credits but it does specify that the number of TS credits available to the group is equal to the number of nights on the reservation times the number of guests on the dining plan. It says the total credits are available to anyone in the family A TS credit is a TS credit. A child who uses a TS credit must order off the child's menu. This is the opposite situation at the theme park where which a child who pays a reduced admission price is allowed (subject to height restrictions) to ride any attraction.

Let's assume a family is using the dining plan according to the made up rules that some people are claiming. 2A and 2C use 4 TS credits (not 2 adult and 2 child credits since there is no such thing) every night for dinner. The last night there are 4 TS credits remaining. The parents decide to put the kids in one of the kids clubs for the night and have a signature meal. The parents have 4 TS credits available to use and when they tell the waiter they are on the meal plan the remaining 4 credits will be debited to pay for the meal. If the parents tell the waiter they only have 2 adult credits available and want to pay for one meal the waiter will probably look at them like they have 2 heads since the computer will verify that there are 4 TS credits available for the meal. I'll even speculate that this is the type of situation Disney envisioned.

I'll certainly agree guests who plan there entire trip around paying out of pocket for all the kids meals so they can use all of the credits, that were paid for at the child rate to purchase adult meals, to be consumed by adults are taking advantage of Disney's generosity. I don't limit it this just to the child/adult issue. Pricing for the dining plan assumed some credits paid for at the child rate might be used to purchase adult meals. The rules have worked this way for years. I'm sure Disney also assumed some guests would leave without using all their credits, some guests won't order appetizers and desserts and not every family will be looking to eat at the restaurant and order the food items that "maximize" the value of the plan. Some people seem to be making a contest out it.

We can discuss morality with respect to guests who abuse the refillable mug program, put extra guests in a room or even lie about their kids ages. In these cases guests are violating posted rules. The difference with the child/adult meal plan issue is the guests are following the rules that Disney has posted. The computer system is set up that way.

SORRY BUT IT IS RUDE TO MAKE UP A RULE JUST SO YOU CAN ATTACK GUESTS WHO CHOSE NOT TO FOLLOW YOUR IMAGINARY RULE.

There have been rumors about Disney changing the rule for months. I guess if this was the big issue some people think it is it would have already been changed.

On the matter being argued here (the use of pooled credits), this contract is ambiguous at best and arguably silent on the matter. By way of example, this whole matter could be put to rest if ONE sentence was added to the four page document: "Guests age 3 to 9 must use the Quick Service Meal and Table Service Meal credit alloted to them, these child credits are not available for use by adults." VERY SIMPLE.

I think this contract is ambiguous on the use of pooled credits within the same party. The contract states that "You can continue using meals any way you like...." It also states that you can "Use your meals and snacks in any order and in any amount throughout your stay..." It is fairly explicit on the items that are not included on the meal plan and on the restaurants that are not included. It does state that kids "must order from the child's menu when available." But it simply does NOT state that child credits must be used by children. SIMPLY PUT, I DO NOT THINK EITHER SIDE CAN ARGUE THAT THIS CONTRACT IS CLEAR ON THIS POINT.

Because the contract is ambiguous, you can then look to the conduct of the parties to determine how the issue is addressed. And on this point it is VERY clear that WDW allows pooled children's credits to be used by adults in the same party. It is also VERY clear that WDW could stop this tomorrow if it wanted to - it controls the DDP. THEREFORE, THE BEST (PERHAPS ONLY) ARGUMENT IS THAT THE USE OF POOLED CREDIT BY ADULTS IS PERMITTED BY THE DDP.

Since this is a contract between WDW and its DDP users that WDW can completely control, I simply do not understand why this becomes some great moral debate. But looking at the contract and the course of conduct between WDW and its DDP users, the moralists in this debate really have nothing to 'hang their hat on'. I for one will use the DDP as WDW permits. And if WDW changes the rules, I will decide at that time whether I will spend $100 a day on the DDP for my family of 4.

 

[jonkatony]

You buy a childs meal plan, you pay a childs price, an Adult uses the meal plan, you pay a childs price.

Its their fault they made me do it.

 

[BAST]

Blast are you saying that Disney intends adults to use childrens credit as an implied term within the contract and that this outweighs the expressed term that differentuates between adults and children as in English common law?

If that is the case I would change my mind.

WDW does not distinguish between adult and child credits with respect to the DDP. WDW can and does regularly distinguish between adults and children in other contexts, but not here. Until they do, the only reasonable assumption is that they have chosen not to make this distinction in administering the DDP.

ALso, the fact that adults and children are different under common law (and much statutory law) is irrelevant - this is a simple contractual interpretation issue.

 

[jonkatony]

Blast - I obviously bow to your knowledge of contract law. Doesn't Disney charge different prices for adults and children so it does differentiate.
Contracturally wouldn't they be expected to provide differently to Adults and children. Disneys offer and the consideration would be different to adults and children?

In England we have the sale of goods act which would probably deal with this but the law of contract would still apply?

 

[Lewisc]

You buy a childs meal plan, you pay a childs price, an Adult uses the meal plan, you pay a childs price.

Its their fault they made me do it.

There is no such thing as a child's meal plan. Disney offers MYW dining. Disney has decided to divide up your meal credits into 3 categories: TS, CS and snack. Disney has not divided the credits into adult and child. There isn't even a system in place to count the credits between child and adult. In the event some family member skip some meals, a child in the club for example, there isn't anyway to determine how many credits left were paid for at the adult or child rate.

What is obvious too me is that if too many guests take advantage of the flexibility in the plan the plan may change.

I'd agree that if too many people take advantage of Disney's flexibility/generosity by planning their entire trip around paying OOP for all of their kids meals and using all of the credits that were paid for at child prices to purchase adult meals, to be consumed by adults, then Disney may change the plan.

I might go so far as to call those guests greedy but the posters who call them thieves are 100% wrong. Those guests are following the rules and are no more stealing than the guests who make multiple trips back through a buffet line.

 

[Pedler]

Again me, a room + 5 kids, I think I made that clear already. Where is the fraud? So I am doing exactly as you say I have to.

I apologize. I had assumed that with 5 kids and 6 adults you would not be sleeping with 1 adult and 6 kids. My fault for making the assumption. It should be a crazy time. Hopefully the kids are older. I can't imagine having that many young kids in a room by myself.

 

[jonkatony]

If there is no difference why do the prices change ?

 

[Pedler]

If there is no difference why do the prices change ?

Because Disney has decided to charge less for persons on a reservation that are less than 10 years old. That doesn't mean the credits aren't pooled and can not be used in any manner allowable.

As Blast as elegantly pointed out it in this particular issue there is not shade of grey. The brochure is at best ambiguous on this point but does say that the credits can be used in any manner and order. Disneys actions have cleared allowed and encourage the use in this manner. For whatever reason some people have a problem with persons using the plan in a manner that is allowed by Disney and are determined to consider this use inappropriate even if Disney were to deem it appropriate.

 

[Pedler]

Blast - I obviously bow to your knowledge of contract law. Doesn't Disney charge different prices for adults and children so it does differentiate.
Contracturally wouldn't they be expected to provide differently to Adults and children. Disneys offer and the consideration would be different to adults and children?

In England we have the sale of goods act which would probably deal with this but the law of contract would still apply?

I think in this case since Disney would be the party that would be injured by this use of the plan they are the ones that would determine if credits are pooled are differentiated. If they determine they are pooled then that is their decision and is not subject to other laws. I.E. they can not be forced to differentiate the credits if they do not want to.

 

[Pedler]

Lewisc, with all due respect to your veteren status on these boards, I do not see the above post as attacking anybody's character. Twinsmama was tactful in her approach to this subject, rendering an opinion on what she believes is right.

Seeing in black and white instead of gray isn't the same as attacking the character of those who see in shades of gray. It is having conviction and standing by it. If she feels it is immoral and stands by that conviction with her actions, don't just assume that she is calling everyone who disagrees with her immoral.

It appears to me that she is refering to the act, not the person. I don't see her trying to foist her view of morality on others with her post. She seems to be stating what works for her, and I see nothing wrong with that.

I may be wrong about this, but it just didn't look like a character attack to me and wasn't deserving of the response you gave. There has been a lot of excellent discussion on this thread, and much of it has been productive. I saw nothing wrong with what she said or the way she said it and feel like her comments were well-intentioned and reasoned, and added to this thread.

You attacked her character by calling her way of thinking "very offensive and rude." All she did was render an opinion, and I think she did so with grace.

Just my opinion.

Actually she said

"I will have to agree with mickman who said that it is immoral to use these child credits as adult ones. this is akin to stealing and we as a society try to get away with these things"

I think that this is pretty much black and white. She is calling those that use the plan in this manner immoral and is saying it is "akin to stealing".

This is my whole issue with this debate. I can understand peoples concern, though I think it is missplaced, that use of the plan in this manner will result in price increases or changes that reduce the quality of the plan for others. What I don't understand is the following:

What is immoral about using the plan in a manner that Disney allows and says is acceptable to use to save money? I think Blast's very elegant description of the plan from a contract lawyers perspective should put to rest the issue of is it allowed or an abuse of the plan. If Disney doesn't see it as unacceptable then how is it stealing? (As an aside if I use a coupon that is doubled and the grocery store and get an item essentially for free is that immoral and stealing as well?)

And if you agree that Disney does allow the use of the plan in this manner then why does it bother people so much that some families use it this way. Once again do you get upset when people can buy something at a store and a rebate back makes it free or you even get paid to buy the product. (I am stilling working down a 100 count spindle of CD-R's I got a best buy that were free after the rebate.) Is that immoral as well?

 

[Lewisc]

If there is no difference why do the prices change ?

Why does Disney charge less for theme park admission? Some water parks base the child discount on height; if you're tall enough to go on everything you pay the adult price. Disney doesn't do that with theme park tickets, children who are tall enough pay less for their theme park tickets but get to ride every attraction.

Why does Disney offer buffets and all you care to eat meals? Are the guests who eat multiple portions stealing food?

For whatever reason Disney decided to trade off some guests taking advantage of a rule in exchange for simplicity and flexibility. I think we might debate if guests who pay OPP for most (or all) of their children's meals and use the majority of credits paid for at the child rate for adult meals are greedy or smart. I won't accept posters that call them immoral thieves since they are following Disney's rules.

 

[mickman1962]

For whatever reason Disney decided to trade off some guests taking advantage of a rule in exchange for simplicity and flexibility. I think we might debate if guests who pay OPP for most (or all) of their children's meals and use the majority of credits paid for at the child rate for adult meals are greedy or smart. I won't accept posters that call them immoral thieves since they are following Disney's rules.

Thanks for finally agreeing with me.

 

[pedro2112]

Thanks for finally agreeing with me.

He meant taking advantage of the rules... following the rules to maximize the value. I thought you felt it wasn't part of the rules to use TS credits this way?

 

[twinsmamma]

He meant taking advantage of the rules... following the rules to maximize the value. I thought you felt it wasn't part of the rules to use TS credits this way?

yes i thought that you felt this way as well. lewisc is saying that those whouse the plan this way are not essentially stealling from disney because disney allows it. I thought that mickman was argueing that this was morally wrong and not disneys intent.