Contract law on reservation?

[NYDisGuy]

Kinda like when Dell had a error on a very nice lens for a camera. Normally $1400 it was listed for $200.. Of course a few people did get the deal, but others got yanked once dell realized the error..

Apples and Oranges actually. That is relevant to the post card bonanza that happened earlier this year when everyone tried to take advantage of a lower price that they would not normally get. The OP paid for the reservation for the 2007 rate, then was issued a contract that said his rate would not change for everything booked up until 12/18/08. Disney sent that, he didn't exploit it.

 

[dburg30]

They placed an order for an item that was listed for sale on their website. It was listed at a certain price. They didnt honor it. How is that different?

 

[NYDisGuy]

They placed an order for an item that was listed for sale on their website. It was listed at a certain price. They didnt honor it. How is that different?

Because this wasn't a quick purchase to try and scam a business. We are talking contracts over something that was already purchased. Disney sent them this contract then changed the rate. This is why the U.S. put in consumer protection laws. I don't know the OP and if they are trying to pull a fast one then I concede my statements, but as far as I know they have every right to expect the rates not to change till 12/8/2008 since it was typed and delivered by Disney themselves. Its called misrepresentation if the contract is changed once both parties agree.

 

[maxiesmom]

Sorry about that typing. It actually says-

"Rate Revisions: Room rates and package rates for arrivals on or prior to 12-31-08, are guranteed as long as your reservation is not changed. For arrivals after 12-31-08, deposits or prepayments guarantee room availability only, and rate and package components have not been determined and are subject to change without notice."

I was just paraphrasing earlier, trying to make it easier, but again, contracts are so particular.

It says "And rate and package components have not been determined and are subject to change." Subject to change! So what exactly is the problem?

 

[dburg30]

OK, then let's go with someone that DIDNT know it was such a great deal on the Dell thing..

Did they place an order for an item at a certain price? Yes. Did the person here? Yes

Did they expect to get the item for that price? Maybe even had their dell card charged for that amount? Yes, here? Yes.

Was there an error somewhere along the line, and dell has a disclaimer about being able to fix an error do to a mistake? Yes. In this situation? YES.

I have a funny feeling the disclaimer that you read

Disney reserves the right to cancel or modify a room reservation (including after the room reservation has been confirmed) if the room reservation includes or resulted from a mistake or error of any kind, including but not limited to, a mistake or error in the rate, resort or room type, or where it appears that a guest has engaged in fraudulent or misleading activity in making the room reservation.

was also on the OP's stuff. THAT'S why there was nothing done wrong here. Maybe the OP's stuff was sent in a 30 minute window that this was an error? I dont think WDW did that on purpose or misled in anyway whatsoever. And if you dont agree with that, by all means, hire a lawyer for $300+ an hour..

 

[petchie]

Question: Was this date error on the new confirmation your recieved with the corrected rate for 2008 on it?

Question: What was the wording on your FIRST confirmation recieved when 2008 rates were not yet established?

 

[NYDisGuy]

OK, then let's go with someone that DIDNT know it was such a great deal on the Dell thing..

Did they place an order for an item at a certain price? Yes. Did the person here? Yes

Did they expect to get the item for that price? Maybe even had their dell card charged for that amount? Yes, here? Yes.

Was there an error somewhere along the line, and dell has a disclaimer about being able to fix an error do to a mistake? Yes. In this situation? YES.

I have a funny feeling the disclaimer that you read



was also on the OP's stuff. THAT'S why there was nothing done wrong here. Maybe the OP's stuff was sent in a 30 minute window that this was an error? I dont think WDW did that on purpose or misled in anyway whatsoever. And if you dont agree with that, by all means, hire a lawyer for $300+ an hour..

Yes, im sure no one knew a $1200 dollar difference in a camera, just like no one knew a 50% decrease in hotel rates. And that quote is relevant to the room reservation, not the contract. You can't create a contract that says they reserve the right to change the contract, thats against U.S. contract laws. They reserve the right to change the reservation or rates is perfectly fine, but the OP's contract stated up until 12/8/2008 it wouldn't be. It would be the same thing if you purchased something at a clothing store and they told you it can be returned anytime, then when you came back they changed your contract so you couldn't. It violates your rights as a consumer.

 

[eeyoresnr]

 

[MissionMouse]

...but again, contracts are so particular.

Precisely, one word can have a dramatic impact of the interpretation of the contract. This contract is not negotiated so it is pretty much oriented to comprehensively protect Disney's interests and should be reviewed in its entirety.

 

[dburg30]

Yes, im sure no one knew a $1200 dollar difference in a camera, just like no one knew a 50% decrease in hotel rates. And that quote is relevant to the room reservation, not the contract. You can't create a contract that says they reserve the right to change the contract, thats against U.S. contract laws. They reserve the right to change the reservation or rates is perfectly fine, but the OP's contract stated up until 12/8/2008 it wouldn't be. It would be the same thing if you purchased something at a clothing store and they told you it can be returned anytime, then when you came back they changed your contract so you couldn't. It violates your rights as a consumer.

You kill me. You really do..

So the $1200 difference was what? An error.. Can you say Error.. I knew you could. The 12/8/08 was guess what??? That's right ladies and gentlemen.. An error..
And they arent changing the contract, they are fixing an error. About every contract out there has an error clause, that if it was a simple typo that it would be fixed, and you have no recourse. If you have a mortgage you probably signed one stating that if a name was not spelled right or a date typed incorrectly they could correct it.

You cant apply just certain parts and ignore the other parts.

But to the PP with the

I'll see you a and raise you a

Edit: also I never said people didnt know it was an error on the lens, BUT someone could have ordered one NOT knowing it was an error..

 

[nikjd68]

I don't see the issue here. There is no error in the contract. No mistake. The contract expressly states that for a reservation made before '08 rates come out you are guaranteed only your dates. What is unclear about that?

You can't take some other sentence completely out of context and say you have some breach of contract.

Time to move on!

 

[dburg30]

I don't see the issue here. There is no error in the contract. No mistake. The contract expressly states that for a reservation made before '08 rates come out you are guaranteed only your dates. What is unclear about that?

You can't take some other sentence completely out of context and say you have some breach of contract.

Time to move on!

The issue is the dates. I think it's supposed to have 12/31/07 in there somewhere, instead of 12/31/08 (an error)

 

[NYDisGuy]

You kill me. You really do..

So the $1200 difference was what? An error.. Can you say Error.. I knew you could. The 12/8/08 was guess what??? That's right ladies and gentlemen.. An error..
And they arent changing the contract, they are fixing an error. About every contract out there has an error clause, that if it was a simple typo that it would be fixed, and you have no recourse. If you have a mortgage you probably signed one stating that if a name was not spelled right or a date typed incorrectly they could correct it.

You cant apply just certain parts and ignore the other parts.

But to the PP with the

I'll see you a and raise you a

Edit: also I never said people didnt know it was an error on the lens, BUT someone could have ordered one NOT knowing it was an error..

The changing of the dates in the contract IS changing the contract. Since there is no negotiation, Disney creates a contract under United States law then sends it to the consumer which is then a binding contract. Disney cannot start changing things within the contract once its been agreed upon by both parties, just like my clothing reference before. And the error clause is what you quoted before, they cannot make a clause that covers themselves from misrepresentation. I guess we have to agree to disagree though.

To the OP, good luck to you.

 

[Tinkrbell]

LOL over Too funny!

Anyway, The date on my ORIGINAL contract, not the revised new one, states- on or before 12-31-08, not 07.

I'm sure Disney won't do anything to change this, and yes they have tons of lawyers, but this is a matter of what is right.

How is it fair to issue a contract and then say "oh, sorry, we didn't mean THAT! and since we have tons of money, big lawyers, and a contract we can change at any time, too bad for you."

Do contracts from Disney Only protect Disney?

 

[dburg30]

And the error clause is what you quoted before, they cannot make a clause that covers themselves from misrepresentation. I guess we have to agree to disagree though.

To the OP, good luck to you.

Yep, it's obvious that you're incorrect idea of misrepresentation and my correct idea of an error dont add up ..

 

[dburg30]

Do contracts from Disney Only protect Disney?

Well now, on THAT part, I'll agree with you.. Well I guess I should ask what do YOU think the answer to that is??

 

[ElizabethB]

I've read the whole thread and am confused. I guess I don't understand the OP's issue.

The contract reads that for any date of arrival after 12/31/08 (that is, any arrival date in 2009 and beyond), at this point your rate is not guaranteed. The only thing that is assured is that you'll have a room -- but the price for that room is yet to be determined. If your date of arrival is in 2008, it reads that your room and rate will not change, so long as you don't change your reservation. 2008 rates have been released. So, what is the concern? (As a technical matter, there is no enforceable contract if there is no price, as price is the key term of any contract. So, Disney is going a step further than they need to and saying that, even though there really is not contract because there is no price yet, we'll promise to have a room for you anyway).

The rest of the contract refers to a situation wherein you received a rate you weren't entitled to. A postcard rate is an example. Another is a travel agent or airline rate. If you aren't entitled to the rate you booked, Disney reserves the right to take any remedial action is wants as a result of that -- re-pricing, cancellation etc. The language about mistake covers Disney for the argument a person might make that they thought they were entitled to use the postcard rate and just made an innocent error. What Disney is saying is, if you're not entitled to the rate you have, they don't care if you got that rate by an intentional fraud or a stupid mistake. You can't keep it.

Getting to contract law, contracts from Disney regarding hotels are "contracts of adhesion". This means that Disney writes the contract and you have no right or ability to negotiate the terms. You either accept the contract to get the room, or you don't accept the contract and you don't get the room. The contract whenever you park your car in a paid lot is the same -- park your car and accept the terms, or don't park your car.

Contracts of adhesion receive particular scrutiny in any court case because judges understand the lack of bargaining power in one party to the contract. Nonetheless, contracts of adhesion are generally enforceable, although a judge may rewrite one to correct obvious inequities. But to have that happen, you have to sue and go to court. Disney, as the writer of the contract, is not going to re-write it because someone doesn't like it.

Contract law is a state law matter (it is not a U.S. law matter). Contract enforceability, while hard for a layperson to understand, is always an issue in any lawsuit concerning a contract. Contracts can be unenforceable for any number of reasons. Mistake, duress, incapacity, the contract is against public policy, etc.

Again, I'm missing the OP's issue, I guess.

 

[imatoad]

OMG, enough already, this forum has gone completely nuts, how many freakin' threads can there be about the rate increase before the entire forum is nothing but one big complaint session. I started coming on this forum for advice and opinions on resorts and dining, and I've always welcomed the good and the bad as no place on earth is perfect. I've also given my opinions as well, people are more than welcome to agree or disagree, but this has reached a new level. I feel sorry for people that have had bad experiences at Disney, fortunately out of 11 visits, we've had 11 great trips and a few of those were above board, maybe we're just lucky. Complain about a dirty room, unaccommodating cm's, bad food, long lines, but to constantly complain about the cost of Disney is ridiculous, they are in business to make money. If a mod is reading this, would you please set up a new forum just for complaints about prices so we can all avoid this stuff. As for not reading these threads, well some are titled in a way that you don't know what they are until you open them.

 

[CarolA]

Sorry about that typing. It actually says-

"Rate Revisions: Room rates and package rates for arrivals on or prior to 12-31-08, are guranteed as long as your reservation is not changed. For arrivals after 12-31-08, deposits or prepayments guarantee room availability only, and rate and package components have not been determined and are subject to change without notice."

I was just paraphrasing earlier, trying to make it easier, but again, contracts are so particular.

That is very clear. Disney has told you that they can change the rates without notice. They have complied with the law. (Are you planning a class action lawsuit?)

In VERY CLEAR English which you have in writing Disney told you the deal. You have the option to reject. How much clearer could they POSSIBLY make it????

I am sorry, but I am with the other imatoad, this is getting out of hand.

Disney is NOT forcing you to send them money, it's not a taxing authority where if you don't pay they take your home..... If you don't like the rates, the MOST effective method to get them lowered. Don't go..... If the rooms aren't sold Disney will lower the rates.

 

[Geoff_M]

The changing of the dates in the contract IS changing the contract.

I think there's some assumptions being made here as to whether or not what's being debated here is actually a legally binding contract. "Contracts" cannot be unilaterally imposed on the second party. You aren't asked to agree to a "contract" when you make a reservation. I would classify such documents as a "statement of policy" or a "disclaimer". This would be similar to a local retailer stating that "Returns are accepted within 14 days of purchase with receipt." This isn't a "contract" with the buyer. Unless a state law requires adherence to such a stated policy, there's nothing binding. Absent such a law, the retailer can change any policy anything they want. Disney isn't even required to give you a written reservation. Most hotels won't give you anything other than a "reservation number" prior to check-in unless you given them an e-mail address. I would also think that it's not likely that Florida consumer laws would even cover mere reservations but instead cover consumer's rights once they check-in into a hotel.

Such policy statements are usually given to customers are a means to try and head off problems with customers' via complaints or lawsuits. For example, on the back of almost every sporting event ticket you will read something to the effect of "By using this ticket, the holder assumes ALL risk associated with this event". The implication is that you have been told that attending this event may involve "risk" (such as a line drive baseball hitting you) and by using this ticket you are "contractually" acknowledging the risk and will not sue the promoter if injured. However, such passive "contracts" are very rarely upheld in court. The only reason such language still exists on tickets is to help with a possible legal defense to remove the ability of the plaintiff to claim that they didn't know that they might get hurt by a batted ball at the ball park.