Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[waltfan1957]

That's the first time I've seen that. The "We hold back the final 30% to ensure that the guests have a room on arrival." line suggests that the owners are not entitled to the 30% as the guests don't have a room. Granted, I don't think that's a contract you are quoting.



You have a contract. You are required to follow it. If someone wants to go to the full extent to pursue legal action, I have no doubt that the owners who choose to keep the points and money would lose.

Stating you are from the UK and no one can find you is just showing your character and that you likely intend to commit fraud in regards to the contract you signed. That says all anyone needs to know about you.

Please don't think all UK owners are the same, regardless of David's contract I would have contacted the renters to see if we could do anything .

 

[disneykins]

I understand David might be deleting negative posts. But when I see 100% positive posts there and 100% negative posts somewhere else, I wonder if both are deleting what suits them. Remember, the other major rental company is owned by these boards and I'm not seeing anything negative about them. Just saying.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

Today from Dave's FB. Should have the credit paperwork shortly.

Starting Thursday April 16th, the Travel Credit system will be rolled out, and we'll begin contacting our guests to provide them with the exact details about how the Credit works, the dollar value, how to redeem the Credit, and the terms and conditions.

Additionally, after listening to the feedback from our guests, we've extended the timeline for the travel credit; guests will have 24 months from the date of issue to redeem their Credit.

 

[Friendlyadvice2]

he more complicated disagreement is on a point not directly addressed. In the event someone actually went to court on this I can see the key phrase as being '30% being due on the day of check in'. It may seem that this means the day check in is supposed to take place; that the contract states it will take place.
Yet I can also see a case where a judge rules check in is not just an idea but an actual act. That 'check in' is the key to every parties expectations of the contract(s). So if no check in is available nor allowed then there is no 'date of check in'.

This is a moot point; David drafted the contract that is in dispute here. His interpretation of when the final 30% is due is clearly documented on his website under the "Owners" section where he actively solicits the points from the owners and has already been posted in this thread. The check in day does not change and is not dependent on actually checking in to the resort. David states himself that the owner is paid regardless of the renter actually checking in. He could argue whatever he'd like in a court, but a simple screen shot showing HIS intent of HIS terms would end that argument fairly quickly. He's already authored statements documented that his terms are non-refundable and all the posturing he's engaging in is going outside of his policies and for goodwill purposes only. He's made his position clear.

I feel the need to add this, but regardless of what is legal, I hope that every owner, renter , and David can be made as whole as possible. I treat every rental as if it's my own and would do everything in my control to help any renter, even if it means me losing out.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

It is not moot but you may not be seeing my point. Again, law beats contract. Dave's interpretation is of little value. Put Dave out of your head. Who drafted the contract is not the issue. Dave has an opinion like everyone can have an opinion (or other things) I am not arguing the contract exists or not or if it is between 2 or 3 people or that the contract says owner is paid regardless of renter actually checking in or not. However that is not the end of the story. Renter ready, willing and able but is prevented, through no fault of renter.

What are facts here? Contracts were signed, then after signing the resort is closed pursuant to government order. It would violate the order for the resort to be open and for renters to be there trying to check in. Violating the order is illegal.

“Under Florida contract law, the defense of ‘impossibility’ may be asserted in situations ‘where purposes for which the contract was made, have, on one side become impossible to perform.’” Harvey v. Lake Buena Vista Resort, LLC, 568 F. Supp. 2d 1354 ... “Acts of God” and governmental action are among several types of business risks which implicate the impossibility defense.” ...
Events that may make performance of the contract impossible include:

• supervening governmental action that makes performance of the contract illegal;

This is a moot point; David drafted the contract that is in dispute here. His interpretation of when the final 30% is due is clearly documented on his website under the "Owners" section where he actively solicits the points from the owners and has already been posted in this thread. The check in day does not change and is not dependent on actually checking in to the resort. David states himself that the owner is paid regardless of the renter actually checking in. He could argue whatever he'd like in a court, but a simple screen shot showing HIS intent of HIS terms would end that argument fairly quickly. He's already authored statements documented that his terms are non-refundable and all the posturing he's engaging in is going outside of his policies and for goodwill purposes only. He's made his position clear.

I feel the need to add this, but regardless of what is legal, I hope that every owner, renter , and David can be made as whole as possible. I treat every rental as if it's my own and would do everything in my control to help any renter, even if it means me losing out.

 

[Cyberc1978]

He is deleting all negative comments. He is only leaving those that praise him.

yes he is, I tried to comment but my comments got deleted and now I can’t comment to anything on his page anymore so much for transparency and honesty.

 

[Miffy]

In the future, this thread--or the main points from it--should be required reading for owners, people considering renting points or renting out their points, and people contemplating purchasing DVC, particularly people who're assuming they'll be able to either rent out points or use their banked points anywhere near their expiration date. Yes, this unprecedented situation may never happen again, but something else could happen that could have the same effect or worse.

 

[Friendlyadvice2]

It is not moot but you may not be seeing my point. Again, law beats contract. Dave's interpretation is of little value. Put Dave out of your head. Who drafted the contract is not the issue. Dave has an opinion like everyone can have an opinion (or other things) I am not arguing the contract exists or not or if it is between 2 or 3 people or that the contract says owner is paid regardless of renter actually checking in or not. However that is not the end of the story. Renter ready, willing and able but is prevented, through no fault of renter.

What are facts here? Contracts were signed, then after signing the resort is closed pursuant to government order. It would violate the order for the resort to be open and for renters to be there trying to check in. Violating the order is illegal.

“Under Florida contract law, the defense of ‘impossibility’ may be asserted in situations ‘where purposes for which the contract was made, have, on one side become impossible to perform.’” Harvey v. Lake Buena Vista Resort, LLC, 568 F. Supp. 2d 1354 ... “Acts of God” and governmental action are among several types of business risks which implicate the impossibility defense.” ...
Events that may make performance of the contract impossible include:

• supervening governmental action that makes performance of the contract illegal;

What you've described is force majeure and there is no clause for that in the contract that David drafted with HIS terms. I don't dispute that Dave's interpretation is of little value; in fact it is the whole point of my post as I find no value in David's interpretation, but will gladly gather all the evidence as to what his interpretation is.

You mention "the renter ready, willing and able is prevented, through no fault of renter", but you don't mention the owner ready, willing and able made a reservation that was cancelled by no fault of their own. Again, this argument has gone full circle so many times, that everybody is dizzy! Nobody wins here.

What I do know is that a lot of people, owners and renters, relied on information provided by David and, based on the information, engaged him and paid handsomely to be a part of rental transaction that was supposed to be seamless. Nobody got that and very few, if anybody, are winning here.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

It is specifically not force maeure. “Acts of God” and governmental action"
It does not matter if it is in the contract or not. Law beats contract.

Again, owner is RW&A, but check in is prevented by...... GOVERNMENTAL ACTION. Nobody did anything wrong. It is not about winning or losing nor have I seen it mentioned before. If this is repetitive I apologize.

I am not taking sides.

What you've described is force majeure and there is no clause for that in the contract that David drafted with HIS terms. I don't dispute that Dave's interpretation is of little value; in fact it is the whole point of my post as I find no value in David's interpretation, but will gladly gather all the evidence as to what his interpretation is.

You mention "the renter ready, willing and able is prevented, through no fault of renter", but you don't mention the owner ready, willing and able made a reservation that was cancelled by no fault of their own. Again, this argument has gone full circle so many times, that everybody is dizzy! Nobody wins here.

What I do know is that a lot of people, owners and renters, relied on information provided by David and, based on the information, engaged him and paid handsomely to be a part of rental transaction that was supposed to be seamless. Nobody got that and very few, if anybody, are winning here.

 

[davper]

As a renter, I would like to see if the owner would consider splitting the cost 50/50 if they lost points, but I’m unsure how to convey that to David’s. I’m afraid that if the owner gives back 100%, David’s will only pass on 50% of that since they know I will be happy with that and nobody will be the wiser. I am sure though, that I will not be accepting a travel credit.

The problem with this is the owner has only gotten 56% of the rental price. So by your thoughts, they would return only 6%.

I think David breaks the contract first when and if he defaults on the residual payment for the first reservation. I understand the second renter is innocent of David’s default, but the second renter has chargeback as a recourse, whereas the owner would be left to lose on all subsequent reservations.

Yes, he breaks the contract 1st on the 1st contract. But that has no bearing on contract 2, 3, & 4. If you breach as a retaliation of contract 1, then you are liable for 2, 3, & 4.

The choice of the words above is BS!! I understand that some owners with banked points might not be able to reschedule or refund cash, but others might be able to do. David is trying to keep his relationship with the owners for the future, so screwing the renter in the meantime. Owners will get their points back and keep their 70% from David’s (yes, I know some banked points will be lost but we still don’t know what DVC will do for sure). From comments from some owners on this thread, I guess a lot of owners don’t really care what happens to renters.

I am tired of reading from owners that we signed the contract that clearly says non-refundable, but the same contract states that refund (not a voucher) will be provided if the accommodation is not available.

David's is trying to screw the owners over as well. They have handledthis whole thing very poorly and claim it is fair for all.

I don't understand why some owners/renters want to talk to the other party so badly. Why did you go through David's if you want to deal directly?

I'd rather go through the rental company and be contacted that way - that's why I used them.

I would rather go through the rental company also, but they are not responsive right now. For some owners, they are in a position where they can cancel and bank the points. If they wait for David's to act, it may be too late for that limiting what an owner can do for the renter.

Wine futures are actual purchases, it’s basically wine maturing in barrel that haven’t been bottled for release. So it should be the same goods not delivered. The merchant was supposed to take my money to buy the wine that I designated. Instead he took the money to fill other people‘s orders. He also bought a few houses, a boat, and paid for some “internet dates“ if I remember correctly. anyways...

Bad analogy. Wine futures is a speculation on a promise. Purchasing futures is no guarantee that you will get the value paid.

Everyone here seems to think David is going bankrupt. On his facebook page there is nothing but praise for how he is handling this situation, not one negative post out of 100+ comments. I've read about 30 pages on this thread and haven't read one positive one. Strange.
I am an owner and have used David with no problems. I only have one small contract so I don't have much money at risk. Someone just rented from me for Halloween, got my 70% and have confidence that if the Ressie cant be completed, David will work it out.
Some on here have thousands of points and rent almost exclusively, so I can understand their concern. Kinda like all those MBAs coming out of college and buying condos in NYC to use as Air BnBs, going to have trouble making mortgag payments now.

All those positive comments are from renters who have been told they will be made whole. All the owner's comments that they are getting screwed are getting removed. I know because I was one of them.
You claim you read 30 pages on this thread and you still believe 'David will work it out'. Good luck with that. Let's put what is happening up against your rental...
Disney is still closed come October. David's sends you an email asking for the 70% back. They tell you that they are not refunding the owner. They will keep the money and give the renter an undefined voucher to be used on future travel, despite contract stating they will get full refund. Also on the contract, as long as you do everything required, you are guaranteed payment that is not being honoured. And to make matters worse, your points expire 12/1/20 and can't be banked. Do you still have confidence in David's now that you are out your points and the money you were to get for them?

The way David has handled and communicated this whole thing has been poor. I expected more for the 22.5% I gave up.

 

[disneykins]

I would only be out my money if I send it back. I will work with the renter in that case but I will keep my payment (the 70% I already have). My argument for keeping the money would be that the renter knew the park was closed when he booked and took that risk. I might still be out the 30 % but I can tolerate that loss.

 

[twinklebug]

The way David has handled and communicated this whole thing has been poor. I expected more for the 22.5% I gave up.

Dude has been traveling the globe with his wife almost non-stop for the last year and bragging about it weekly, if not daily on social media. That was done in poor taste even during good times.

Then he abuses the good faith of his customers at a time when many of them are being put out of work by a pandemic and failing economy.

SMH.

 

[Marionnette]

I understand David might be deleting negative posts. But when I see 100% positive posts there and 100% negative posts somewhere else, I wonder if both are deleting what suits them. Remember, the other major rental company is owned by these boards and I'm not seeing anything negative about them. Just saying.

Disboards does not own a major DVC rental company. They do own a travel agency...Dreams Unlimited. Plus, given that this thread is specifically about David’s (check the title), it wouldn’t be surprising that they are the agency being discussed.

The only posts I’ve noticed being deleted on this thread were those that got too personal with their remarks. And I’ve been following pretty closely since the thread started.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

IMO people are trying to read exact and precise legal meaning into emails from Dave's that are meant to reassure and solve a problem. I am pretty confident this was not reviewed by an attorney prior to Dave sending it. It was send to me. It is accurate and unaltered outside me removing personal information. It asks "if" I would be willing to help. No demand no threat. They ask me not to cancel if it appear active and IMO that is pretty good advice for me and better for Dave. I have not contacted the renter yet because I am still in the banking window. Then Dave asks "work with us to see if there are any alternatives"

Dave does not say there has been contact with the renter and IMO the renter should make the decision on whether to gamble on Disney opening in late May/early June. I am waiting on an answer to this question. The idea of just returning the 70% is not developed at all. This is not really surprising to me. I assume it means in the event I get all my points back. It seem evident that only a fool would expect me to send the money back if my points have vanished. Waiting for an answer. Yet it is an 'ask' if I am willing. No threat and no demand. Dave states it is a big request.

Then since I have some of the money I am asked"if" i get my points back I would re-rent them. I presume this means without additional payment but don't know and I am waiting on a answer.

Dave specifically says the funds returned would go toward a travel credit and it would include Dave's commission. I assume but don't know Dave would take commission on use of the voucher.

"Good afternoon [DMU],

We are reaching out to you today in regards to the XXXXXX reservation.
As you are aware, COVID-19 has become a pandemic, and Disney Resorts and Operations has made the difficult but brave choice to close “until further notice”. The Disney Vacation Club is cancelling those reservations impacted by their decision and returning points to owner’s accounts.

As a result we are reaching out to inquire if you would be open to helping the XXXXXX family during this difficult time.

Reservation #XXXXXXXXXXX
Check in Date: May XX,2020
We ask, at this point, that you do not cancel this reservation if it appears active,but continue to work with us to see if there are any alternatives arrangements that we could pursue to assist this family.
We are asking if you would be willing to return the 70% for the XXXXX reservation. The funds that are returned will go towards a Travel Credit for the family. This Travel Credit will be in the total amount that the XXXXXX family paid for their reservation including our commission.
We understand that refunding the money is not feasible for all owners, in which case would you be willing to re-rent your returned points?By re-renting your returned points the funds from the new guest will go towards the Travel Credit.
We understand that this is a big request and a situation that we have never encountered. We are hoping that we can all work together to find a viable solution.
Please let us know if you are willing to assist.If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to reach out.
We look forward to hearing from you!"

 

[CraigInPA]

It is specifically not force maeure. “Acts of God” and governmental action"
It does not matter if it is in the contract or not. Law beats contract.

Again, owner is RW&A, but check in is prevented by...... GOVERNMENTAL ACTION. Nobody did anything wrong. It is not about winning or losing nor have I seen it mentioned before. If this is repetitive I apologize.

I am not taking sides.

The initial closure by Disney was not based upon "Governmental Action". The Governor's order to shelter in place came weeks after Disney closed the resorts.

Furthermore, "acts of God and governmental actions" are actually Force Majeure events.

If this ever were to end up in court, a Judge would review what each party thought at the time they were signing the agreement. It's quite clear from David's literature and contracts that his belief and the owner's belief at signing is that the check-in date is the date of the final payment, whether the check-in occurs or not. This is why your argument that the check-in date being impossible (due to resort closure) is a reason to avoid payment of the final 30% payment to the owner is a non-starter.

 

[Madame]

IMO people are trying to read exact and precise legal meaning into emails from Dave's that are meant to reassure and solve a problem. I am pretty confident this was not reviewed by an attorney prior to Dave sending it. It was send to me. It is accurate and unaltered outside me removing personal information. It asks "if" I would be willing to help. No demand no threat. They ask me not to cancel if it appear active and IMO that is pretty good advice for me and better for Dave. I have not contacted the renter yet because I am still in the banking window. Then Dave asks "work with us to see if there are any alternatives"

Dave does not say there has been contact with the renter and IMO the renter should make the decision on whether to gamble on Disney opening in late May/early June. I am waiting on an answer to this question. The idea of just returning the 70% is not developed at all. This is not really surprising to me. I assume it means in the event I get all my points back. It seem evident that only a fool would expect me to send the money back if my points have vanished. Waiting for an answer. Yet it is an 'ask' if I am willing. No threat and no demand. Dave states it is a big request.

Then since I have some of the money I am asked"if" i get my points back I would re-rent them. I presume this means without additional payment but don't know and I am waiting on a answer.

Dave specifically says the funds returned would go toward a travel credit and it would include Dave's commission. I assume but don't know Dave would take commission on use of the voucher.

"Good afternoon [DMU],

We are reaching out to you today in regards to the XXXXXX reservation.
As you are aware, COVID-19 has become a pandemic, and Disney Resorts and Operations has made the difficult but brave choice to close “until further notice”. The Disney Vacation Club is cancelling those reservations impacted by their decision and returning points to owner’s accounts.

As a result we are reaching out to inquire if you would be open to helping the XXXXXX family during this difficult time.

Reservation #XXXXXXXXXXX
Check in Date: May XX,2020
We ask, at this point, that you do not cancel this reservation if it appears active,but continue to work with us to see if there are any alternatives arrangements that we could pursue to assist this family.
We are asking if you would be willing to return the 70% for the XXXXX reservation. The funds that are returned will go towards a Travel Credit for the family. This Travel Credit will be in the total amount that the XXXXXX family paid for their reservation including our commission.
We understand that refunding the money is not feasible for all owners, in which case would you be willing to re-rent your returned points?By re-renting your returned points the funds from the new guest will go towards the Travel Credit.
We understand that this is a big request and a situation that we have never encountered. We are hoping that we can all work together to find a viable solution.
Please let us know if you are willing to assist.If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to reach out.
We look forward to hearing from you!"

People need to wake up.
Per their lawyers:

 

[CraigInPA]

People need to wake up.
Per their lawyers:
View attachment 488399

That's their legal theory, untested in court. I'd expect nothing else from their attorney. Especially so if they were the firm that incompetently drafted the agreements by leaving out a Force Majeure clause. David's should be going after their errors and omissions policy carrier to bail him out.

It's clear that David's is not planning on continuing in business. When you are a broker, you can't screw over your source of supply, which is what this does.

Note that his attorney is likely "Lerners LLP", not "Learners LLP" as stated in the message.

 

[twinklebug]

That's their legal theory, untested in court. I'd expect nothing else from their attorney. Especially so if they were the firm that incompetently drafted the agreements by leaving out a Force Majeure clause. David's should be going after their errors and omissions policy carrier to bail him out.

It's clear that David's is not planning on continuing in business. When you are a broker, you can't screw over your source of supply, which is what this does.

Note that his attorney is likely "Lerners LLP", not "Learners LLP" as stated in the message.

He's more than planning on continuing, he is employing adult family members (his own kids).
David's business model is too old fashioned. IMHO, he needs to step down all the way and just let the kids, who actually care about the customers take over... that is if the company still exists after all this.

 

[disneykins]

I got an email from David's today to book a reservation for the fall. Not many points so not much risk? Is it worth it?

 

[Madame]

That's their legal theory, untested in court. I'd expect nothing else from their attorney. Especially so if they were the firm that incompetently drafted the agreements by leaving out a Force Majeure clause. David's should be going after their errors and omissions policy carrier to bail him out.

It's clear that David's is not planning on continuing in business. When you are a broker, you can't screw over your source of supply, which is what this does.

Note that his attorney is likely "Lerners LLP", not "Learners LLP" as stated in the message.

Yep, but owners beware.