AP sales…

[Ms Bibbidi]

,

 

[Robbie Cottam]

No. The disclosure and warning I drafted as a hypothetical is much different than just the idea is a possible park closure or reaching safety caps. The burden is on the one having a duty to disclose to make it clear. Many cases regarding contracts have supported this.

I know your not going to believe this, however, your verbose disclosure and Disney’s are the same.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

,

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

yes, but this day we’re not blacked out. Others who planned accordingly were able to use their magic keys to enter the park….. Proper planning prevent piss poor performance.

this is different than not book DVC point until a month before they expire to find out there are no rooms left!

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

Blockout and unavailability are the same: the passholder is denied entry for a day they already purchased. The language in the footnote was not enough to support a case dismissal. The Judge decided that; not me. The case is going forward because she has stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Sorry, but the law is read into the contract. That makes the reservation language and the availability language ambiguous and subject to legal contract interpretation by the courts. It is not about planning. It is about contact interpretation.

They are not the same in Black out non of the class would have entered the park on the day in question. According to you some did.

Unavailability mean her buck was full.

The court looked at this case “in a light most favorable to the non moving party” (the plaintiff) and dismissed most of her case. That means the judge said there is no set of facts, that you could claim, that would result in a favorable outcome for you if this went to trail.

Someone else on this thread said that the lawsuit had teeth…. I think the judge knocked those teeth out.

If “proper planning” was the pivotal issue then availability and reservations would be cut off from all park guests at a fixed point prior to park day. In your example that would be … what … 60 days prior to park day — no more reservations for anybody? That would have to be a highlighted and detailed disclosure too.

No not at all. A number of Magic pass holder planned accordingly and were able to enter the park on the day in question .

Planning is part of life.
Showing up and walking in is not always possible. Calling an hour ahead is not always possible .

 

[DeeBee3]

Blackout is completely different than unavailability.

Blackout - preset days passholders of whatever category cannot enter park with pass.

Unavailability - park is full (aka Christmas or New Year's) and no one of any ticket is allowed in.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

.

 

[RoseGold]

Disney's treatment of the Magic Keys was terrible. It has really made me second guess APs and my WDW plans in general.

I would not be surprised to see similar shenanigans in Florida once the lawyers clear it up or make the right contract or whatever. They have been very clear in their words and actions what their objective is for APs.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

Disney's treatment of the Magic Keys was terrible. It has really made me second guess APs and my WDW plans in general.

I would not be surprised to see similar shenanigans in Florida once the lawyers clear it up or make the right contract or whatever. They have been very clear in their words and actions what their objective is for APs.

Because of this law suit Disney is not able to properly treat their DVC members, by providing them annual passes

 

[Sandisw]

I know that is what she claims in her suit but has that been proven?

Yes. She was allowed to buy tickets for her family and was forced to buy a ticket for herself and was able to go in.

 

[Sandisw]

Because of this law suit Disney is not able to properly treat their DVC members, by providing them annual passes

Except they have no contract with DVC owners to provide such a product. So lawsuit aside, they don't have to sell new passes to any of us.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

Yes. She was allowed to buy tickets for her family and was forced to buy a ticket for herself and was able to go in.

Well that could be problematic for Disney!

 

[Robbie Cottam]

Except they have no contract with DVC owners to provide such a product. So lawsuit aside, they don't have to sell new passes to any of us.

True but it is implied… with the annual pass holder discount….

No I would not make that arguement in court.

 

[Sandisw]

True but it is implied… with the annual pass holder discount….

No I would not make that arguement in court.

I can not even say it is implied because membership extras are just that...incidental benefits that are not guaranteed in anyway. There have been times throughout DVC where they were not a part of the extras we got.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

Not sure if I’m reading the responses correctly, but it sounds like some are saying no AP’s due to the California suit.
If that’s the case, than why are the still selling renewals?

Seling renewals doesn’t potentially expand the class in the same way that selling new passes does.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

So anyone who has an Incredipass or Sorcerers pass now is potentially part of the class? That's interesting.

Thanks for all of your thoughtful posts. Much appreciated.

If it gets certified everyone with the DL passes will likely be part of the class. Everyone with the DW passes could potentially be part of the class as well, but that is not certain.

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

Interesting question:
in you have an annual pass and show up at the gate when the park is in phase 4 full capacity …. You would get turned away, would you not?

How is this any different?

Because they wouldn’t sell day tickets to walk-ups during a phase IV closure. The issue isn’t that they blocked out passholders becuase they hit capacity. The issue is that they blocked out passholders while hitting an artificial capacity they made up while simultaneously continuing to sell tickets to day guests.