Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[momincolorado]

They are diligently working out a plan for their voucher program... Lol. No one knows.

And it’s top secret and must not be questioned (or any clarification requested) via social media What a great company!

 

[Cyberc1978]

The line with operational changes discusses amenities of the resort and to be honest, I don’t think it is enough for anyone to have assumed that covered resort closure. I certainly never did when I entered into the contract as an owner,

That implied to me that the renter couldn’t claim they had a right to get out if the pool was closed, etc,

The fact that he has come up with the travel voucher does lead me to believe he got some legal advice that his contract may not have what it needs to take that stance,

I dont know what it covers, but to me “operational changes“ can be a lot of things and as stated “this would include but is not limited to“ basically this means to me any operational changes made by DVC.

 

[Cyberc1978]

In my opinion this references amenities such as pools and restaurants, this doesn't seem to reference lodging not being available. But I'm sure they are going to argue. The sentence appears limited to amenities not presence of a room. A room isn't an amenity.

With the statement “not limited to“ this could mean any operational changes made by DVC.

 

[Cyberc1978]

I think one of the reasons why they came up with the voucher plan is that they want to stay in business. IF they turned down all renters they would receive very bad PR and due to that alone they might not be able to stay in business.

 

[yankeesfan123]

With the statement “not limited to“ this could mean any operational changes made by DVC.

Correct. While the examples given are amenities, they can certainly make an argument that this does cover a resort closure.

 

[Sandisw]

I dont know what it covers, but to me “operational changes“ can be a lot of things and as stated “this would include but is not limited to“ basically this means to me any operational changes made by DVC.

Which is exactly why it can’t be relied on because if I think It applies to one set of things, and you can apply it to something else...and that something else is the product you are buying...it would take a judge to decide if it was reasonable For a renter to know they were agreeing to not having a room.

 

[Cyberc1978]

Which is exactly why it can’t be relied on because if I think It applies to one set of things, and you can apply it to something else...and that something else is the product you are buying...it would take a judge to decide if it was reasonable For a renter to know they were agreeing to not having a room.

You can argue both ways and as you say it would take a judge. Maybe that’s another reason why David’s dont wanna risk going to court, then it can go both ways. If the lose he have to pay ALL renters. Now he can settle with a vouchers and maybe increase the prices in a few months.

 

[Amymouse13]

My issue with a voucher is that he can't actually produce the good. He's a third party. It's not a credit with Disney cruise lines or United airlines that I can directly book. Since he doesn't hold any actual commodity he's like a pass through. No owners, no value to voucher. We didn't give him money to hope to find a reservation, we paid when he could secure one. He alone cannot make the voucher worth anything. Not to mention we have no idea when Disney will reopen. If he is depending on a high percentage of points that are about to expire between March and August which is fairly good...

 

[Marionnette]

My issue with a voucher is that he can't actually produce the good. He's a third party. It's not a credit with Disney cruise lines or United airlines that I can directly book. Since he doesn't hold any actual commodity he's like a pass through. No owners, no value to voucher. We didn't give him money to hope to find a reservation, we paid when he could secure one. He alone cannot make the voucher worth anything. Not to mention we have no idea when Disney will reopen. If he is depending on a high percentage of points that are about to expire between March and August which is fairly good...

I think it depends on what he allows the voucher to cover. David’s also has a travel agency that could book DCL or ABD for the renter. Of course, those are much more pricey vacations than a DVC rental and would likely result in the renter spending even more money in order to get use out of their vouchers.

 

[momincolorado]

I think it depends on what he allows the voucher to cover. David’s also has a travel agency that could book DCL or ABD for the renter. Of course, those are much more pricey vacations than a DVC rental and would likely result in the renter spending even more money in order to get use out of their vouchers.

Yup! From their e-mail to me: “This Travel Credit will enable you to apply it towards another rental at a Disney Vacation Club Resort, or apply it towards other travel venues that we offer such as Disney Cruise Line, ABD, Regular Disney Resort Bookings and Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, subject to the guidelines and conditions of the Travel Credit.”

 

[IdahoDisneyFan]

Correct. While the examples given are amenities, they can certainly make an argument that this does cover a resort closure.

Given that virtually the entire paragraph speaks to resort amenities, I highly doubt many courts would interpret this to include the paid-for accommodations being totally unavailable. The phrase "included but not limited to" is thrown into a lot of contracts, but that doesn't mean it carries as much weight as some think it does. The specific examples used gives a reasonable reader a clear indication of what was intended. While it might include something like the laundry machines not working, the idea that it would include you showing up to the resort and not even having a room is far fetched to say the least.

To me, the strongest argument against this is if they intended to include resort closure in this clause they would have included it. It does not take an attorney to understand that this would have been very simple language to include. They included "play ground", but not "resort closure"? Clearly that language isn't included because that's not what was intended. Also worth noting, where ambiguity exists in a contract (i.e., open to interpretation), the ambiguity will be interpreted against whoever drafted the contract, in this case, David's.

 

[yankeesfan123]

right. And as a lawyer, “but not limited to” means exactly what it means: not limited to. David’s is not limited to those examples. Not. Limited. To.

I’m a renter who could lose thousands of dollars in this. Trust me, I’m not in his side.

if there’s enough interest I can do some research on westlaw regarding how Florida courts have interpreted “not limited to”, but since we aren’t even certain a lawsuit could be brought in Florida over this contract, I’m not sure such research would be worth my time (since I can’t bill for it!)

 

[Galun]

right. And as a lawyer, “but not limited to” means exactly what it means: not limited to. David’s is not limited to those examples. Not. Limited. To.

I’m a renter who could lose thousands of dollars in this. Trust me, I’m not in his side.

if there’s enough interest I can do some research on westlaw regarding how Florida courts have interpreted “not limited to”, but since we aren’t even certain a lawsuit could be brought in Florida over this contract, I’m not sure such research would be worth my time (since I can’t bill for it!)

Just for my interest - if David’s go bankrupt as a Canadian company, can a Canadian bankruptcy trustee even go after owners who are based outside of Canada? If not, then it doesn‘t really matter what the contract says.

If yes, how does a Canadian trustee even collect outside of the country? The amount we are talking about is small claims court territory. I’d think jurisdiction is going to be a huge issue for the Canadian trustee.

Intuitively I picked David’s because he was based in Canada and I am in the US. As an owner I get 70% of the cash right away, so in the back of my mind I always think my downside is limited if things go south.

 

[yankeesfan123]

Just for my interest - if David’s go bankrupt as a Canadian company, can a Canadian bankruptcy trustee even go after owners who are based outside of Canada? If not, then it doesn‘t really matter what the contract says.

If yes, how does a Canadian trustee even collect outside of the country? The amount we are talking about is small claims court territory. I’d think jurisdiction is going to be a huge issue for the Canadian trustee.

Intuitively I picked David’s because he was based in Canada and I am in the US. As an owner I get 70% of the cash right away, so in the back of my mind I always think my downside is limited if things go south.

Absolutely NO idea, and I have even less knowledge about if they use “trustees” or how the BK process is in Canada.

 

[Galun]

Absolutely NO idea, and I have even less knowledge about if they use “trustees” or how the BK process is in Canada.

Say we have a three way contract - someone in New York (renter), someone in Canada (David’s), and someone in California (Owner). In this case it’s the renter that’s trying to recover since they are out 100% of the money with no vacation.

I‘d think if the renter really wants to sue, it will have to be in Canada against David’s, and California against the owner. Probably very difficult and cost prohibitive for the average renter?

For the renter chargeback really seems like the best option.

 

[ziravan]

Just for my interest - if David’s go bankrupt as a Canadian company, can a Canadian bankruptcy trustee even go after owners who are based outside of Canada? If not, then it doesn‘t really matter what the contract says.

If yes, how does a Canadian trustee even collect outside of the country? The amount we are talking about is small claims court territory. I’d think jurisdiction is going to be a huge issue for the Canadian trustee.

Intuitively I picked David’s because he was based in Canada and I am in the US. As an owner I get 70% of the cash right away, so in the back of my mind I always think my downside is limited if things go south.

This is why the best solution would be to leverage whatever goodwill the owners might have towards their renters to find an equitable solution.

No courts necessary.

Davids should be trying to use that goodwill to make things right for as many renters as possible instead of trying to pad his liquidity.

I’ve had intense discussions in the past on this site about how I felt private renters were a better option than the brokers and I was repeatedly dismissed because the extra security David’s provided was worth the price. That discussion will be different from now on, if it ever comes up again.

 

[yankeesfan123]

Any lawsuit anywhere would likely exceed the cost of what is owed.
Plus, your attorney will likely the 1/3 if whatever is recovered + costs.

the only cost effective way would be a small claims case,but you’re still going to spend a lot of money on out of country service and be unlikely to actually collect anything in the end.

 

[yankeesfan123]

This is why the best solution would be to leverage whatever goodwill the owners might have towards their renters to find an equitable solution.

No courts necessary.

Davids should be trying to use that goodwill to make things right for as many renters as possible instead of trying to pad his liquidity.

I’ve had intense discussions in the past on this site about how I felt private renters were a better option than the brokers and I was repeatedly dismissed because the extra security David’s provided was worth the price. That discussion will be different from now on, if it ever comes up again.

In general, for MOST foreseeable possibilities, David’s contract does keep everyone safer and more secrete.
Obviously, not in this scenario.

 

[IdahoDisneyFan]

right. And as a lawyer, “but not limited to” means exactly what it means: not limited to. David’s is not limited to those examples. Not. Limited. To.

I’m a renter who could lose thousands of dollars in this. Trust me, I’m not in his side.

if there’s enough interest I can do some research on westlaw regarding how Florida courts have interpreted “not limited to”, but since we aren’t even certain a lawsuit could be brought in Florida over this contract, I’m not sure such research would be worth my time (since I can’t bill for it!)

I think most of us, lawyers or not, can comprehend what "not limited to" means. But it certainly doesn't mean, "includes anything the contract drafter wants it to include after the fact."

"This would include but is not limited to operations of resort restaurants, pools, play grounds and other amenities controlled by the Resort." I don't claim to know how for sure a particular court, in Florida or elsewhere, would interpret this, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest they might not be that impressed with an argument that this was intended to include the resort being completely shut down, when "resort shutdown" would be an obvious inclusion if intended.

 

[LAX]

I think one of the reasons why they came up with the voucher plan is that they want to stay in business. IF they turned down all renters they would receive very bad PR and due to that alone they might not be able to stay in business.

Even with the voucher plan, there has been plenty of negative PR. At this point, I am not even sure if his business is salvageable even if he survives this liquidity crunch.

LAX