Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[WDWEPCOT]

I did offer to reschedule my renter thru David - everyone was onboard until they were not - then unbeknownst to me renter accepted voucher - I still have not heard from David - as Owner in this situation where does this leave me? I did not cancel the reservation - when I contacted the renter to confirm new dates to book was informed of voucher renter wished me well - nothing from David since March when I contacted them - I received my points back from DVC - so now what? I am sure I’m not the only person in this situation
I know we have discussed this for pages and pages

 

[Bearval]

I did offer to reschedule my renter thru David - everyone was onboard until they were not - then unbeknownst to me renter accepted voucher - I still have not heard from David - as Owner in this situation where does this leave me? I did not cancel the reservation - when I contacted the renter to confirm new dates to book was informed of voucher renter wished me well - nothing from David since March when I contacted them - I received my points back from DVC - so now what? I am sure I’m not the only person in this situation
I know we have discussed this for pages and pages

Let your conscience be your guide. If you are made whole by receiving your points back and you can use them then you should consider giving back the funds that you have received. If the points you have received back are basically useless to you due to your UY. I would just leave things the way they are since you booked a room for the agent and this did not allow you to use your points possibly before all of the cancelations. What i would never do is sign the new convoluted contracts.

 

[WDWEPCOT]

The legal consequence of a contract which is found to have been frustrated is that the contract is automatically terminated at the point of frustration. The contract is not void ab initio ("from the beginning"); only future obligations are discharged. At common law, obligations which fell due for performance before the frustrating event are still in operation

Correct me if I’m wrong - didn’t David say the contracts were frustrated ??

 

[Sandisw]

I did offer to reschedule my renter thru David - everyone was onboard until they were not - then unbeknownst to me renter accepted voucher - I still have not heard from David - as Owner in this situation where does this leave me? I did not cancel the reservation - when I contacted the renter to confirm new dates to book was informed of voucher renter wished me well - nothing from David since March when I contacted them - I received my points back from DVC - so now what? I am sure I’m not the only person in this situation
I know we have discussed this for pages and pages

Personally...and this is only my opinion...you offered your renter options...they certainly were not worried about you and your points...and neither is Davids. At this point, I would simply use your points as you wish and if contacted by Davids, tell him you will forfeit the 30% owed as you consider the matter settled...unless you want to re-rent the points.

My big problem with re-renting with a new contract is that it makes the owners responsible for any type of issue...resort closure, damage, etc...and to me, that is no longer something I will move forward with.

As I have stated many times, Davids has said the contract is frustrated and that owners should be giving money back or re-renting points because the closure by Disney makes them liable but then tells renter that Disney canceling is not fault of owner which is what entitles them to refund.

Not doing anything at this point myself that isn't what I feel is comfortable dealing with his company. I am sure some will disagree.

 

[WDWEPCOT]

Thank you - I posted the legal definition of frustrated contracts - I believe this answers my questions
Yes - wild horses couldn’t make me sign that new contract let alone EVER do any business with that shady man again absolutely no reason except his greed for his action
You can make or break yourself in times like this I believe David’s is showing his choice my opinion others are free to form their own and I wish everyone peace and well !! I really hope everyone is made as whole as possible but I’m afraid it will not happen and it just sucks!!

 

[Bearval]

The legal consequence of a contract which is found to have been frustrated is that the contract is automatically terminated at the point of frustration. The contract is not void ab initio ("from the beginning"); only future obligations are discharged. At common law, obligations which fell due for performance before the frustrating event are still in operation

Correct me if I’m wrong - didn’t David say the contracts were frustrated ??

It would be a court of law that would declare the contract is frustrated since everyone's interpretation of what is a frustrated contract would differ.

 

[WDWEPCOT]

I am not declaring them frustrated I am just posting the legal definition of a frustrated contract

 

[Yinn]

I did offer to reschedule my renter thru David - everyone was onboard until they were not - then unbeknownst to me renter accepted voucher - I still have not heard from David - as Owner in this situation where does this leave me? I did not cancel the reservation - when I contacted the renter to confirm new dates to book was informed of voucher renter wished me well - nothing from David since March when I contacted them - I received my points back from DVC - so now what? I am sure I’m not the only person in this situation
I know we have discussed this for pages and pages

I went through a similar situation, they'll reach back out. You'll get an email telling you that your points are extended, and that to reach an "amicable" situation for everyone, you'll be encouraged to rent your points. If you do re-rent your points, you'll be paid your 30%. Which implies you won't get the 30% if you don't re-rent your points.

The way the email reads, it's encouraging and doesn't make it seem like it's a requirement for you to re-rent your points. But I don't like that it leverages the remaining 30% as hostage. It also doesn't address any money that was returned. So does that mean only 30% is going to be paid out?

 

[Bearval]

I am not declaring them frustrated I am just posting the legal definition of a frustrated contract

Sorry, I was referring to where David was stating the contracts were frustrated. It would be interesting to see what a court would decide since he wrote the contracts and this is the important part, dealing with a product that had a expiration date. Just unwinding the transactions wouldn't make all of the owners whole and since these owners locked up their ability to use them for him and could have used them before the shutdowns.

 

[WDWEPCOT]

I strongly urge google search covid 19 frustrated contracts English law
Very interesting read - any way you want to slice this David has messed this up and in my opinion is at fault
I’m just not seeing how he has not breached these contracts
They may not be frustrated (not far from it) but none of his actions seem to be him truly trying to uphold his end of the contracts in any meaningful fashion - again my experience and opinion

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

The legal consequence of a contract which is found to have been frustrated is that the contract is automatically terminated at the point of frustration. The contract is not void ab initio ("from the beginning"); only future obligations are discharged. At common law, obligations which fell due for performance before the frustrating event are still in operation

Correct me if I’m wrong - didn’t David say the contracts were frustrated ??

David has sent emails with the frustration/impossible scenario. That is not the end of the question if you are in 'legalease'. The remedies for those are equitable. In court you don't get to double dip. If you have your points and are whole then the money goes back, of course going back here seems to be David and no further. Reality and legal are not matching well here.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

It would be a court of law that would declare the contract is frustrated since everyone's interpretation of what is a frustrated contract would differ.

I believe it would not be a court of law it would be a court of equity although some states have combine the powers of both in their lowest court level. A breach of contract is a court of law. A court of law standing alone from a court of equity can not grant equitable remedies. In your posts there is no breach of contract and if there is a breach of contract you sue on that. Equity is for non breaches of contract like frustration or impossible.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

lol, when the other part to a contract puts 'frustration/impossible' in writing, sends it to you and asks you to act accordingly it is pretty hard for them to get out of it.

I am not declaring them frustrated I am just posting the legal definition of a frustrated contract

 

[WDWEPCOT]

I am under no delusion that I will ever see the 30% owed me for the 3 rentals I have with him / I am not happy about that but I won’t screw someone out of their vacation - I just hope I don’t have a situation where the resort is open and my renter does not go - then my points are toast.

 

[Sandisw]

I believe it would not be a court of law it would be a court of equity although some states have combine the powers of both in their lowest court level. A breach of contract is a court law. there is no breach in frustration or impossible.

I think the point is that if a owner doesn’t believe that the resort closure voids the contract, then Davids would have to use the legal system to recover he decides to go that route,

 

[WDWEPCOT]

The definition of frustrated you are paid for your services up to point of frustration upon point of frustration nothing more is required not returned

 

[WDWEPCOT]

I’m just not convinced they are frustrated in all contracts because the act has to be impossible - not all points are impossible to rent but some are - so some contracts are frustrated and some not - but the longer this goes the more that will change as we are hitting a moving target - then DVC moved it some more - then DVC said can’t borrow more than 50% points - all will come into play which may in turn make all contracts frustrated

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

I’m just not convinced they are frustrated in all contracts because the act has to be impossible - not all points are impossible to rent but some are - so some contracts are frustrated and some not - but the longer this goes the more that will change as we are hitting a moving target - then DVC moved it some more - then DVC said can’t borrow more than 50% points - all will come into play which may in turn make all contracts frustrated

Frustration of purpose and impossibility are different remedies. They do not depend on each other. Points being possible to be rented or wasted would become important AFTER a court ruled on frustration of purpose or impossibility. The future use of 'points' would not be relevant to the question of whether the contract was impossible.

 

[WDWEPCOT]

I’m order to rule on frustration it would have to be proved that the contract is impossible to be performed - not difficult - impossible - having points that are expired would accomplish that goal
The sole act of court / judge declaring a contract frustrated does not imply nor seek remedy it stops / ends the contract at the point of frustration
Because these contracts are so poorly written and covid they have met a few requirements for frustration but the main requirement is - impossible - is it impossible to fulfill obtaining a room? Some owners can honestly say yes some right now no - but as David drags this on more owners will be able to say yes as points become unable to be used or borrowed back to fulfill original contract amount hence meeting impossible making them frustrated
This DOES not give David the right to do anything that he is doing as a judge needs to rule on frustration
Maybe David should try working from the kindness of his heart for the best interest of someone besides himself - it would have done his business a lot more value and goodwill than what he is currently getting
Again just my opinion - others may very

 

[lawboy2001]

It would be a court of law that would declare the contract is frustrated since everyone's interpretation of what is a frustrated contract would differ.

You have that right!!

I have commented previously that I think performance of these rental contracts has been frustrated by the closure of the DVC resorts.

I also indicated that in this case of frustration, money exchanged should be returned. Someone commented that frustration absolves the parties of any further performance of their obligations, and so nothing further need be done, but what has already been done (i.e. money exchange) is not required to be undone. I'm skeptical. I think that legal theory of frustration is applicable to longer term contractual relationships in which a series of obligations and payments, over months or years, are to be performed under the contract.

In the case of these rental contracts, there was only one single obligation (on the owner): to make available accommodation that the renter made payment to David's for, and which payment David already partially transferred to the owner. So I think this is analogous to making a contract to buy a painting, in which the buyer pays a deposit, following which the painting is destroyed. The contact cannot be performed. I don't think the law provides that the seller can keep the deposit. I'm sure this was a first year law example but maybe I am out to lunch on this!?

But...on further reflection, the analogy is far from perfect: the DVC resorts are still there, unlike the painting my example, so bookings can be made. It may just be much more difficult to get a booking, and it may need flexibility on both owners and renters side. Frustration isn't generally found if a circumstance makes performance of a contract more difficult or somewhat different from what the parties the contract contemplated. Food for thought!

It's all really just an academic question -- no one is going to court over this, and consequently no one will be forced to pay up if they don't want to or are unable to.

The advice to let your conscience be your guide sounds as good as any to me....