Contract law on reservation?

[Jalva22]

I'm certainly no lawyer, but I think the idea of "good faith" determines a lot of contract disputes no matter what's actually stated on the paper. Disney's policy for as many years as I can remember has been to allow reservations into the next calendar year under the stipulation that the rate is not final until that year's rates have been released. They can demonstrate that this is their past and current practice in court of law. You, also, have a good faith alternative: cancel your reservation. I don't think there's a court in the world that will make Disney adhere to this error in wording as they were not out to deceive you in any way.

 

[Sammie]

I have to agree with some of the others about the current complaints about room rates and the pickiness about it.

If anyone truly is that distraught over it, I suggest you vacation elsewhere, you will be happier and I know Disney won't mind.

 

[NYDisGuy]

"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.

That is a contract with the buyer actually. Once the company provides the service, the consumer is presented a piece of paper that guarantees a working product in exchange for monetary value. Then stated in that contract are the terms or policies of the company, in which the consumer has every right not to agree to, which is called returning the item.

In this case, Disney unilaterally sent the consumer (OP) a contract stating the room reservation in exchange for monetary value. The contract also listed the terms and policies of Disney. Once Disney sends it to the consumer and the OP didn't cancel their res, then it is a binding contract between both parties and the only way to change that is through negotiations with the other party. And also, just because Disney gives out alot of contracts, it doesn't mean that they also have more rights. Each contract (or receipt) is with the sole consumer and business. So just because they "meant" 2007, the consumer was unaware of this mistake.

I understand it's a "sin" or blasphemous to even think Disney is a corporation, but I wouldn't be so quick to sacrifice the OP's rights because Disney has more lawyers on their payroll.

 

[Geoff_M]

You, also, have a good faith alternative: cancel your reservation. I don't think there's a court in the world that will make Disney adhere to this error in wording as they were not out to deceive you in any way.

I think you are 100% correct. If someone were to try and legally force the issue, Disney could simply return the person's deposit, cancel the reservation, and tell them they are free to stay somewhere else if they'd like. This would remove any claim of harm by the reservation holder.

 

[Geoff_M]

That is a contract with the buyer actually. Once the company provides the service, the consumer is presented a piece of paper that guarantees a working product in exchange for monetary value. Then stated in that contract are the terms or policies of the company, in which the consumer has every right not to agree to, which is called returning the item.

However, this is only applicable when the offer of a warranty or other guarantee is made as part of the initial offering. (In my post above, I should have added that something cannot be added contractually "after the fact"). The document we are talking about is sent after the consumer agrees to the initial offering. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract(*). It would not (from what I know and have read), under general contract law, be considered a contractually binding part of the offer. Unless there is specific Florida state law that makes such a document enforceable through consumer protection laws, it's not legally binding.

* =

Perhaps the most important feature of a contract is that one party makes an offer for a bargain that another accepts. This can be called a 'concurrence of wills' or a 'meeting of the minds' of two or more parties. There must be evidence that the parties had each from an objective perspective engaged in conduct manifesting their assent, and a contract will be formed when the parties have met such a requirement. An objective perspective means that it is only necessary that somebody gives the impression of offering or accepting contractual terms in the eyes of a reasonable person, not that they actually did want to contract.

The case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (The company advertised up front that IF you purchased the product AND it didn't cure you of the Flu, THEN the company would pay you £100) is an example of a 'unilateral contract', obligations are only imposed upon one party upon acceptance by performance of a condition.

 

[scottnorth]

Here is my opinion for what it is worth:

The original poster is somewhat correct (If in fact a contract is formed by making a reservation). Please keep in mind that even contract law is not black and white but various shades of grey.

A specific contract term is in dispute: how much the guest is to pay for their stay at Disney.

The real question is: What is guest's remedy under the applicable law?

1. Specific Perfomance: Guest pays what was previously agreed to. This seems possible but a struggle.

2: Damages: In this circumstance, the guest probably can not show any damages.

or

3. Void the contract as "no meeting of the minds has taken place," which is essential in any contract. Simply cancel the reservation with a full refund.

Obviously, the guest wants either damages (not going to happen, as they probably don't exist) or specific performance.

It may be worth the guest's time to pursue specific performance if the following conditions apply:

1. Significant increase of money between the contracted price and the 2008 price,

AND

2. The guest has a friend who is a lawyer draft a letter (for free) on the lawyer's letterhead to Disney outlining the guest's position.

-Scott

DISCLAIMER: This is only my opinion, I am NOT dispensing legal advice.

 

[Tinkrbell]

Thanks scottnorth, that is basically what I thought.

I don't understand how people can manipulate the dates on a contract or change the wording to suit them.

My contract clearly 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.

"guaranteed until 12-31-08"

My reservation is in 1-08

So that is my protest, changing the rules in the middle of the game.

How would any AP holder like it if, at the gate, they said "You need to buy an add on ticket for the AP's since we raised the price. It says so, in so many words, right on the back of your ticket"

Would you have a gripe then?

 

[CarolA]

"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."

.

Under contract law you must READ the ENTIRE document not just the part you LIKE!!!! Read the second sentence, you have no claim!

 

[Tinkrbell]

Yes, I did.

The second sentence says;

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."

The key word there being "AFTER"

My reservation is BEFORE

 

[Geoff_M]

Tinkrbell, perhaps it would help if you could tell us what makes you think that what was stated it part of a binding "contract"? (Keep in mind that scottnorth's opinion is qualified with the stated assumption that it is a "contract".) Does the document state that it is a "contract"? Was this language presented to you in advance of you making the reservation, or was it unilaterally mailed to you after the fact as a means to inform you of Disney's policies and procedures concerning reservation payments, changes, and cancellations?

 

[Snookies]

Here is my opinion for what it is worth:

The original poster is somewhat correct (If in fact a contract is formed by making a reservation). Please keep in mind that even contract law is not black and white but various shades of grey.

A specific contract term is in dispute: how much the guest is to pay for their stay at Disney.

The real question is: What is guest's remedy under the applicable law?

1. Specific Perfomance: Guest pays what was previously agreed to. This seems possible but a struggle.

2: Damages: In this circumstance, the guest probably can not show any damages.

or

3. Void the contract as "no meeting of the minds has taken place," which is essential in any contract. Simply cancel the reservation with a full refund.

Obviously, the guest wants either damages (not going to happen, as they probably don't exist) or specific performance.

It may be worth the guest's time to pursue specific performance if the following conditions apply:

1. Significant increase of money between the contracted price and the 2008 price,

AND

2. The guest has a friend who is a lawyer draft a letter (for free) on the lawyer's letterhead to Disney outlining the guest's position.

-Scott

DISCLAIMER: This is only my opinion, I am NOT dispensing legal advice.

I am not an attorney. I don't even play one on TV (but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Select last night), but Scott has identified the salient issues. Namely, 1) does a confirmation letter constitute a contract?; 2) if so, what recourse, if any, does the aggrieved party have? Regarding the first question: I am guessing that a reasonable person test may be applicable in the sense that if the firm has a demonstrable history of making reservations and adjustments this way, a reasonable person may conclude that a binding contract isn't established by a confirmation letter with a typographical error inconsistent with past operating procedures. Regardless, the second question about recourse is perhaps the most relevant here (as pointed out by Scott) in that the guest wants the firm to honor the price in the confirmation letter, while the firm wants the guest to pay the now higher price. If one assumes for the sake of discussion that a contract exists, I am guessing that the firm's likely response would be to offer to cancel the reservation with an offer of a full refund. Since we are discussing a reservation that is outside the windows when cancellation penalties would imply, I'm assuming that the OP doesn't desire this solution and, instead, wants a specific performance remedy. If OP truly thinks this is worth the time and effort, I suggest calling CRO, taking to a reservation agent calmly and politely describing the letter you received. If OP isn't satisfied, ask to speak with a manager and repeat the process again. If OP still isn't satisfied, I then second Scott's suggestion of having a letter drafted and sent by a lawyer on legal letterhead outlining OP's position and requested remedy. If the guest isn't satisifed with the outcome, an attorney could advise whether there is any possibility of further recourse. However, it is possible that the firm will maintain the position that the most efficient solution is to cancel the reservation and refund the deposit. On the other hand, they may conclude that customer goodwill is worth the price of honoring the rate.

DISCLAIMER: This is only my opinion, I am NOT dispensing legal advice.

 

[Tinkrbell]

Geoff M-

OK then, if this isn't a contract,then what is it? A disclaimer? Like a ticket for a sporting event like one pp explained.

If you got hit by a flying puck at the joe, would you be allowed to sue or go after them for damages? It says on the back of any Red Wings ticket, or any other sporting event ticket, that they are not liable.

I'm pretty sure that once you pay for and recieve the paper/ticket/rental agreement/documentation/etc....you agree to the terms and conditions that are in writing.

 

[tinkertot]

Okay I can't sit here any longer and not share my thoughts on the matter.
I booked our vacation a month ago for March of 2008. I was quoted the 2007 rates knowing the rates were subject to change for 2008. I have been going to Disney now for the past 11 yrs. and this has always been their policy. In my confirmation as stated on the rate goes like this:

Rate Revisions: Room rates and package rates for ARRIVALS ON OR PRIOR to December 31, 2007, are guaranteed as long as your reservation is not changed. FOR ARRIVALS AFTER December 31, 2007, deposits or prepayments
guarantee room availability ONLY, and rate and package components
have not been determined and are SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE.

I'm sorry I don't understand what is hard to understand.

 

[northie]

Okay I can't sit here any longer and not share my thoughts on the matter.
I booked our vacation a month ago for March of 2008. I was quoted the 2007 rates knowing the rates were subject to change for 2008. I have been going to Disney now for the past 11 yrs. and this has always been their policy. In my confirmation as stated on the rate goes like this:

Rate Revisions: Room rates and package rates for ARRIVALS ON OR PRIOR to December 31, 2007, are guaranteed as long as your reservation is not changed. FOR ARRIVALS AFTER December 31, 2007, deposits or prepayments
guarantee room availability ONLY, and rate and package components
have not been determined and are SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE.

I'm sorry I don't understand what is hard to understand.

Ditto. Clearly stated. Not really a mystery.

 

[lilyv]

Okay I can't sit here any longer and not share my thoughts on the matter.
I booked our vacation a month ago for March of 2008. I was quoted the 2007 rates knowing the rates were subject to change for 2008. I have been going to Disney now for the past 11 yrs. and this has always been their policy. In my confirmation as stated on the rate goes like this:

Rate Revisions: Room rates and package rates for ARRIVALS ON OR PRIOR to December 31, 2007, are guaranteed as long as your reservation is not changed. FOR ARRIVALS AFTER December 31, 2007, deposits or prepayments
guarantee room availability ONLY, and rate and package components
have not been determined and are SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE.

I'm sorry I don't understand what is hard to understand.

Tinkertot-very well put. I think OP's options will be to pay the going rate for 2008, or take a refund. Time to get on with life. Milk and gasoline will probably cost more in 2008 also. 99% of us won't be shocked...and we certainly won't stomp our feet and "demand" what they charged in 2007.

 

[Tinkrbell]

Again, MY contract says 12-31-08, 08, 08, 08!!!!

Not 07

Its a simple contract, disclaimer, piece of paper, whatever you call it.

IT SAYS 12-31-2008!!!!!!

YOURS may say 12-2007, but MINE says 12-2008!!!

 

[NHDisneyKid]

Okay I can't sit here any longer and not share my thoughts on the matter.
I booked our vacation a month ago for March of 2008. I was quoted the 2007 rates knowing the rates were subject to change for 2008. I have been going to Disney now for the past 11 yrs. and this has always been their policy. In my confirmation as stated on the rate goes like this:

Rate Revisions: Room rates and package rates for ARRIVALS ON OR PRIOR to December 31, 2007, are guaranteed as long as your reservation is not changed. FOR ARRIVALS AFTER December 31, 2007, deposits or prepayments
guarantee room availability ONLY, and rate and package components
have not been determined and are SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE.

I'm sorry I don't understand what is hard to understand.

The issue is that the "Rate Revisions" section in the OP's confirmation has 12/2008 referenced, not 12/2007. What if the OP hadn't been going to Disney for 11 years, knowing the policy, and got her contract expecting that since she arrives prior to the stated date of 12/31/08, her rate is guaranteed. Isn't that what HER 'contract' states? She does, in fact, arrive prior to 12/31/08, so "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" would imply that her room rate is guaranteed (assumption: from the time of booking) provided she makes no changes.

I understand the OP's position...and I understand that most of us know that room rates aren't guaranteed until they're released for a certain time period. But there is the possibility that someone wouldn't know that, and would assume that the contract is gospel.

 

[Jalva22]

Good night, this is amazing. Here are the real questions in my mind: Can you beat Disney if you challenge them? Is it worth the headache in the first place?

The answer to both questions in my mind is "no." So, you're left with making the best of the hand you've been dealt or cancelling your trip. Of the things that are attainable in your situation, what's going to make you happy?

 

[lilyv]

.......OP stated: "I made a 1/08 reservation 2 mths ago with an 07 room rate only."

The date on that reservation will show it was made in 07. If OP is happy to hope they can plead I demand what's printed, OP may find Disney will comp them a deal, or equally possible, a refund check might be waiting for them at the check-in counter. (Assuming they have refused any other options....)

Personally, I wouldn't play the game to the end.

 

[lilyv]

Good night, this is amazing. Here are the real questions in my mind: Can you beat Disney if you challenge them? Is it worth the headache in the first place?

The answer to both questions in my mind is "no." So, you're left with making the best of the hand you've been dealt or cancelling your trip. Of the things that are attainable in your situation, what's going to make you happy?

And the final point to ponder....how badly do you want to take the risk of possibly identifying yourself as an extremely unreasonable guest?