Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread!

[DL1WDW2]

You only have to do that once you add it to MDE....it’s not part of making a DVC reservation...

Technically I think a reservation placed into MDE would be legally the same thing as a DVC Booking .
But why would I want this in MDE if it was a rental that I don’t want to be financially responsible for in case of any unknown issue that the renter might create and be responsible for? Without their financial information included?
I would want everything to be legally correct to protect myself.
Otherwise how do you protect yourself?
Especially if you have not informed DVC of all the correct booking intent .

 

[Tatebeck]

You misquoted and left out the word prior and renting

So you think the sentence stands and that you need a prior reservation to rent. Only spec renting is allowed

See how silly this is ? If DVC wants to ban something they will have the vote to do so. That is the real truth. if they don’t cherry-picking lines of a contract is meaningless.

Sigh That wasn't a quote, it was a summary. Notice the lack of quotation marks...

I am not sure what you are talking about for the rest of this. You need a reservation for anyone to use a room, that is all it is saying. It has nothing to do with rentals specifically at all.

Please stop fishing for gotchas, my hands are gonna cramp from all this typing lol

 

[Mouseforward]

Sigh That wasn't a quote, it was a summary. Notice the lack of quotation marks...

I am not sure what you are talking about for the rest of this. You need a reservation for anyone to use a room, that is all it is saying.

To be fair, it was a summary that left out the pertinent points

 

[Mouseforward]

Technically I think a reservation placed into MDE would be legally the same thing as a DVC Booking .
But why would I want this in MDE if it was a rental that I don’t want to be financially responsible for in case of any unknown issue that the renter might create and be responsible for? Without their financial information included?
I would want everything to be legally correct to protect myself.
Otherwise how do you protect yourself?
Especially if you have not informed DVC of all the correct booking intent .

It is spelled out in clear language, if you rent, you are responsible, and you must have a contract with that renter stating that they will follow the terms in the conditions the POS home resort, rules, yada yada yada, and DVC can ask for that on Check in.

There’s nothing you could say or do to remove yourself from responsibility from a renter of your points. Renting points is not risk free. That’s why many of us would prefer a points buyback.

 

[Tatebeck]

To be fair, it was a summary that left out the pertinent points

Nope
The word prior actually doesn't add anything to the meaning there. It is baked into the definition of a reservation. IE every reservation (that I am aware of) has to happen before you use something, otherwise, you didn't have a reservation...

Please stop trying to argue

 

[JackosinDIS]

I think the point that @Mouseforward is making is that one particular logic is being applied to one argument, but not applied to the other. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Mouseforward]

Nope
The word prior actually doesn't add anything to the meaning there. It is baked into the definition of a reservation. IE every reservation (that I am aware of) has to happen before you use something, otherwise, you didn't have a reservation...

Please stop trying to argue

OK, so in your world the word prior has no meaning it doesn’t mean before. But I live in the real world .

 

[Tatebeck]

OK, so in your world the word prior has no meaning it doesn’t mean before. But I live in the real world .

It does. But prior reservation and reservation mean the same thing. A reservation is always prior to an event.

 

[Mouseforward]

I think the point that @Mouseforward is making is that one particular logic is being applied to one argument, but not applied to the other. You can’t have it both ways.

Exactly, the funny thing is I hate spec renting. But the solution is not inventing meaning out of cherry picked clauses.

 

[Tatebeck]

I think the point that @Mouseforward is making is that one particular logic is being applied to one argument, but not applied to the other. You can’t have it both ways.

Exactly, the funny thing is I hate spec renting. But the solution is not inventing meaning out of cherry picked clauses.

I don't think I changed logic anywhere? Something I said must have been misunderstood

Both clauses both when isolated, and within their original context do not change the meaning of the clauses.

ETA: One is talking specifically about a rule just for rentals, and the other is talking about all reservations. Is that where the hang-up is?

 

[DL1WDW2]

It is spelled out in clear language, if you rent, you are responsible, and you must have a contract with that renter stating that they will follow the terms in the conditions the POS home resort, rules, yada yada yada, and DVC can ask for that on Check in.

There’s nothing you could say or do to remove yourself from responsibility from a renter of your points. Renting points is not risk free. That’s why many of us would prefer a points buyback.

What is a points buyback?

I am very aware that I am 100% responsible …

And what is the yadayadayada information Disney will ask me for when I check in?

 

[JackosinDIS]

Exactly, the funny thing is I hate spec renting. But the solution is not inventing meaning out of cherry picked clauses.

Same. I would love for there to be a clause in the contract that says it is not allowed. But this is not it. See my post at #680 (some 32 pages back )

 

[Mouseforward]

Same. I would love for there to be a clause in the contract that says it is not allowed. But this is not it. See my post at #680 (some 32 pages back )

Yeah, I always seem to be arguing against my own interests. I cannot understand why they put a clear clause in removing their power to approve rentals and and solidifying our right to rent, but they don’t put a clear clause in banning spec rentals. They put a clear clause in about not commercially renting, they put a clear clause in about no compensation for transfers, and they chose to not put a clause in stating that reservations made by the owner at 11 months cannot be rented.

 

[Mouseforward]

What is a points buyback?

I am very aware that I am 100% responsible …

And what is the yadayadayada information Disney will ask me for when I check in?

Yada yada yada refers to the 5 documents. We have to read to understand the rules. Which in itself is a bit ridiculous.

I only meant that whether or not there’s an MDE reservation doesn’t change your responsibility. I wasn’t implying that you didn’t understand I apologize if it came off that way.

I’m also suggesting that if DVC would buy back our points even at $16 a point I could put up with a total ban on renting.

 

[Tatebeck]

Yeah, I always seem to be arguing against my own interests. I cannot understand why they put a clear clause in removing their power to approve rentals and and solidifying our right to rent, but they don’t put a clear clause in banning spec rentals. They put a clear clause in about not commercially renting, they put a clear clause in about no compensation for transfers, and they chose to not put a clause in stating that reservations made by the owner at 11 months cannot be rented.

The base POS documents and HRR were first made/started so long ago before the internet was popular and the online booking system was built so they probably never thought about how easy it might be to advertise rentals, then change the bookings afterwards.

A similar situation with walking. There are already clauses like we have been discussing that they could probably try to use to stop spec renting and walking reservations, they just didn't think they needed to worry about anything of the sort when they were first written so long ago before the way booking changed and the online reservation system was put into place.

Why they haven't just bit the bullet and added specific rules to stop some of these things specifically is another question entirely though.

 

[Mouseforward]

Why they haven't just bit the bullet and added specific rules to stop some of these things specifically is another question entirely though.

That is exactly my line of thinking, when our HOA board wants to ban something, we call our attorney and he advises us which document to modify and what is the correct procedure to modify it. Including if it’s our covenants, what the voting procedure is to change the rules.

He also crafts the specific language we should use. He always asked me to draft it first, then has a good laugh at my choice of language and phrasing explaining to me why what I wrote will not accomplish the goal. And completely rewrites it.

Granted, I’m in a low cost of living area, but on average we only spend about $1000 for each of these changes. With all the lawyers, DVC probably has on staff. I have to assume that their intent is to not take any action.

 

[mkatsy]

That is exactly my line of thinking, when our HOA board wants to ban something, we call our attorney and he advises us which document to modify and what is the correct procedure to modify it. Including if it’s our covenants, what the voting procedure is to change the rules.

He also crafts the specific language we should use. He always asked me to draft it first, then has a good laugh at my choice of language and phrasing explaining to me why what I wrote will not accomplish the goal. And completely rewrites it.

Granted, I’m in a low cost of living area, but on average we only spend about $1000 for each of these changes. With all the lawyers, DVC probably has on staff. I have to assume that their intent is to not take any action.

I’m in a suburb of Orlando and that is exactly what happens here. We wanted out of state owners to stop renting to college kids, and the HOA attorney made it happen. He wrote a clause that they can only have as many occupants as bedrooms (2 for the primary) the kids can’t afford the rental without packing people in … problem solved. No closet = no bedroom, they were putting kids in the bonus rooms and the office.

 

[Mouseforward]

I’m in a suburb of Orlando and that is exactly what happens here. We wanted out of state owners to stop renting to college kids, and the attorney made it happen. He wrote a clause that they can only have as many occupants as bedrooms (2 for the primary) the kids can’t afford the rental without packing people in … problem solved. No closet = no bedroom, they were putting kids in the bonus rooms and the office.

We were able to do that by septic certification as we’re only certified for X amount of residents in the house based on the specification of the septic system. Most of our homes only allow 4 to 5.

Unfortunately, we’re very similar to Florida, and since our covenants mentioned the word renter once, we can’t outright ban or restrict renting outside of town ordinances. That is unless we could get 2/3 of the owners to approve a modification and the existing owners would have to be grandfathered making it pointless.

Essentially, we were saved by sh$t as we like to say.

 

[lowlight]

Yeah, I always seem to be arguing against my own interests. I cannot understand why they put a clear clause in removing their power to approve rentals and and solidifying our right to rent, but they don’t put a clear clause in banning spec rentals. They put a clear clause in about not commercially renting, they put a clear clause in about no compensation for transfers, and they chose to not put a clause in stating that reservations made by the owner at 11 months cannot be rented.

I don't know that anyone has been arguing that there is a specific "you can't spec rent" clause. It's more a combination of clauses and booking functionality that leads one to make that assumption (i.e. contract required, MS notified at time of reservation, inability to change lead guest online, etc). And fair enough to you, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks is implied, only what can be proven in a court of law.

 

[Judique]

Technically I think a reservation placed into MDE would be legally the same thing as a DVC Booking .
But why would I want this in MDE if it was a rental that I don’t want to be financially responsible for in case of any unknown issue that the renter might create and be responsible for? Without their financial information included?
I would want everything to be legally correct to protect myself.
Otherwise how do you protect yourself?
Especially if you have not informed DVC of all the correct booking intent .

No one has to give a credit card at a DVC resort booked through Member Services by a member.

But, and here's the kicker, if you want to use online checkin, they ask for a card. That way you also get to say what time you expect to arrive and make some requests.

I rarely use online checkin because my DVC resort compromised my credit card many years ago. That's my excuse. I know, it's a weak excuse. In reality for most of my trips I don't care and usually get what I booked and in a reasonable time frame.

I only care about stuff like the view if I have people with me that might care. Then I try to book Boardwalk View.

You are NOT protected from your renters. You are the one ultimately responsible for room damage. I would imagine most renters think they are expected to give a credit card and when given the option of charging to the room, hand one over.