Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[Galun]

Hi everyone!

I have a reservation with David's DVC in May and I contacted them earlier this month to see if they can get in touch with the owner to reschedule my trip to a later date. I'm a nurse right in the epicenter of COVID 19, therefore I knew the situation was looking bleak and Disney would not be up and running in May. They sent me a canned email response just like their replies on Facebook. I know they are inundated with cancelled reservations from March and April, so the chances of them of working on my May reservation is slim to none, but I gave them a head ups to try to work things out with the owner this way they don't lose any points.

Should I initiate a CC charge back the day I'm supposed to check-in? I used my Chase Sapphire back in October and their site does not mention anything about a charge back time frame. I also prepaid my dining plan with Disney gift cards. How will I get that money back?

Wait for the reservation to be canceled by Disney - it may occur before day of check in. You will likely be offered a voucher. At that point you refuse it and initiate a chargeback with your credit card.

Credit card chargeback requires the trigger event to first occur (reservation cancelled through no fault of your own), and usually require you to work with the merchant to find a resolution (David's offered you a voucher which the terms you find to be unacceptable).

Thank you for the work that you are doing.

 

[Grumpy by Birth]

Email from David about refunds


As you know we act as an intermediary between DVC owners and guests. As we have a contractual obligation to pay your DVC booking owner for the use of their points, we therefore have a no-refunds policy, as once the funds have been paid to the DVC booking owner, they are no longer in our control to be able to provide a refund. Due to the complexity of the point system and the fact that Owners may have to bank or borrow points in order to secure your reservation, cancellations, upgrades and date modifications are not permitted. We understand that through no act or omission of yours, ours, nor the DVC booking owner this reservation no longer exists.
Due to the incredible impact of the COVID19 pandemic, we have been forced to step outside of our policy in order to be more accommodating to the affected travelling families that had secured reservations that now have been cancelled by Disney due to the closure of Disney Resorts. While some owners have been eager to help, not many are in the position to issue refunds. Those who have offered points back, may have restrictions on those points that make them less than attractive for future travel.

In direct response to the COVID19 pandemic, with the assistance of our legal partners and as a token of our goodwill in alignment with Travel Industry Standards, we have come up with a program that gives guests time and choices in travel, when it is safe for them to do so. This Travel Credit will enable the guest 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, Adventures by Disney, Regular Disney Resort Bookings and Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, subject to the guidelines and conditions of the Travel Credit. This travel credit has been extended to guests who have not been successful in arranging alternate dates using the points of their original DVC booking owner, and have not otherwise been compensated.
We have begun rolling out the travel credit terms and conditions and have sent this to you in a separate e-mail.
Please let us know if you have any additional questions or concern.

So, if I'm interpreting this correctly, David's indicates that they would be legally within their rights to stick to the "no refunds" policy despite the resorts being closed. They are only offering vouchers out of the kindness of their hearts... as a gesture of goodwill.

So, if David's is voluntarily accommodating renters (albeit with potentially worthless vouchers), I'll give him a little bit of credit for that. However, he's singing a different tune with some owners in making veiled legal threats that they owe him the 70% back.

So which is it? Contractual obligation or gesture of goodwill? If the latter, then he's not required to provide recovery to those renters. That would mean that the "no refunds" policy still applies, but he's giving them vouchers anyway out of the kindness of his heart. If he's choosing to do that as a gesture of goodwill and not because he's legally bound to, then it seems he still owes the remaining 30% to the owner since he's opting to step outside his policy and "waive" the no refunds clause.

He can't unilaterally change the terms of the contract in order to sprinkle optional pixie dust and then tell owners they are legally bound to fund it.

 

[SeaDis]

I've tried to keep up with this this fast thread, but have missed 15-20 pages along the way. Would anyone care to safety check this?

I have a reservation mid-May with borrowed points. Since I can (currently) reclaim the points, I reached out to my renter to check their intentions for their trip and make them aware that I can refund the 70% I have received. They stated they are cancelling trip, and yes I should go ahead and cancel/reclaim the points (which I haven't yet). I emailed David's to confirm but I'm getting no reply; hopefully because they are taking them on reservation date, but I have no idea.

Obviously I am worried about the borrowed points policy changing while we wait. I would rather give it back directly to the renter, but if they pursue a voucher then no problem giving it back to David's. BUT, if the points policy changes, I am less inclined to return money especially when I seem to be the only one working on this for a couple weeks now.

Would you cancel the reservation, reclaim the points, and just wait for David's to ask for the 70%? The renter stated to do this (email), so I wouldn't expect a claim for travel damages, etc. I don't see how David's can claim damages if they are keeping commission and I make the 70% fully available. Thanks!

 

[mustinjourney]

Once thing that I thought was interesting from the article on the Doctrine of Impossibility though:


Based on that, I am theorizing that everyone owes everyone there money back. I believe, from a legal perspective, the DVC Member owes David his money back, and David owes the renter their money back. Essentially, everything is undone as if the contract were never signed.

Now go do research on unsecured transactions....and similarly, what it takes to enforce a judgment. In short, even if the renter is supposed to get their money back, not only would they have to spend a decent amount of money to go to court (and likely hire an attorney as well) and win -- but THEN, they'd have to spend more money trying to collect on the judgment.

And if David's is more or less bankrupt -- that's no good. And the owners of the contract, depending on the state they live in, could be judgment proof. Unlike the IRS, you can't garnish wages or threaten jailtime.

Additionally -- it's beyond unlikely for a contract victor to be awarded extra damages for a breach of contract (and in this case -- it's not even a breach).

Lastly -- as for "unjust enrichment" -- if the DVC owners used points that are about to expire and Disney is not letting them do anything with those points, the DVC owner is not unjustly enriched. If anything -- they're still not getting the last 30% they bargained for.

 

[Dracula]

I've tried to keep up with this this fast thread, but have missed 15-20 pages along the way. Would anyone care to safety check this?

I have a reservation mid-May with borrowed points. Since I can (currently) reclaim the points, I reached out to my renter to check their intentions for their trip and make them aware that I can refund the 70% I have received. They stated they are cancelling trip, and yes I should go ahead and cancel/reclaim the points (which I haven't yet). I emailed David's to confirm but I'm getting no reply; hopefully because they are taking them on reservation date, but I have no idea.

Obviously I am worried about the borrowed points policy changing while we wait. I would rather give it back directly to the renter, but if they pursue a voucher then no problem giving it back to David's. BUT, if the points policy changes, I am less inclined to return money especially when I seem to be the only one working on this for a couple weeks now.

Would you cancel the reservation, reclaim the points, and just wait for David's to ask for the 70%? The renter stated to do this (email), so I wouldn't expect a claim for travel damages, etc. I don't see how David's can claim damages if they are keeping commission and I make the 70% fully available. Thanks!

NO! You have a contract with David that expressly prohibits you from canceling or changing the reservation, and doing so makes you liable for any other costs incurred by the renter (park tickets, airfare, maybe even lost wages). You do not yet know whether the resort would be closed in May (probably will, but Disney would not confirm, and did not cancel your reservation). Bottom line, you already have the 70% from David, do not cancel the reservation unless directed by David.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

As you indicate this because very complex very quickly.
OTH I find the discussion really interesting and informative.

Now go do research on unsecured transactions....and similarly, what it takes to enforce a judgment. In short, even if the renter is supposed to get their money back, not only would they have to spend a decent amount of money to go to court (and likely hire an attorney as well) and win -- but THEN, they'd have to spend more money trying to collect on the judgment.

And if David's is more or less bankrupt -- that's no good. And the owners of the contract, depending on the state they live in, could be judgment proof. Unlike the IRS, you can't garnish wages or threaten jailtime.

Additionally -- it's beyond unlikely for a contract victor to be awarded extra damages for a breach of contract (and in this case -- it's not even a breach).

Lastly -- as for "unjust enrichment" -- if the DVC owners used points that are about to expire and Disney is not letting them do anything with those points, the DVC owner is not be unjustly enriched. If anything -- they're still not getting the last 30% they bargained for.

 

[Sandisw]

I've tried to keep up with this this fast thread, but have missed 15-20 pages along the way. Would anyone care to safety check this?

I have a reservation mid-May with borrowed points. Since I can (currently) reclaim the points, I reached out to my renter to check their intentions for their trip and make them aware that I can refund the 70% I have received. They stated they are cancelling trip, and yes I should go ahead and cancel/reclaim the points (which I haven't yet). I emailed David's to confirm but I'm getting no reply; hopefully because they are taking them on reservation date, but I have no idea.

Obviously I am worried about the borrowed points policy changing while we wait. I would rather give it back directly to the renter, but if they pursue a voucher then no problem giving it back to David's. BUT, if the points policy changes, I am less inclined to return money especially when I seem to be the only one working on this for a couple weeks now.

Would you cancel the reservation, reclaim the points, and just wait for David's to ask for the 70%? The renter stated to do this (email), so I wouldn't expect a claim for travel damages, etc. I don't see how David's can claim damages if they are keeping commission and I make the 70% fully available. Thanks!

As just mentioned, you would be in violation of your contact. The thing is that even if you return the 70% to Davids, he has made it clear that he will not be giving it to your renters,

So, you are really stuck at the points to keep it as is, and let your renters know that per the information you have heard about Davids, is that funds are not being returned to renters, even when owners are willing,

Unless you get it in writing from Davids allowing you to cancel and his assurance it will go to your renters, I’d not go that route,

 

[mustinjourney]

Has anyone considered that this once in a lifetime event has, and is, ruining businesses. How about giving David a break and accept the credit. He is otherwise likely to be bankrupt and 30 odd peoples livings will be destroyed.
Over here in the UK, even the government has asked if people could accept credit notes if not immediately desperate for the money, rather than insist on refunds even if legally they are entitled to it, otherwise airlines and very large travel companies and many other companies will go bankrupt causing massive misery to millions.
David never envisaged this, no company or individual did, but things happen in life and this is probably the most devastating world wide event even since the second world war. Lets not all make it worse if we don't need to, whats morally right and whats legally right are not always the same.

based on reports from others that followed him on his social media accounts, dude was living the high life and traveling the globe...presumably using the never-ending cash flow provided by the business. He reportedly bought a 40 or 50 ft yacht a year or two ago.

If he can't float his business expenses for 2 or 3 months, then he was living completely outside of his means...and that's on him.

 

[GrumpyInPhilly]

Oh, I know that I can rent for more! I was just saying that if it was a choice, I’d take less doing it by myself than every using a broker,

I am not sure I am doing it again anyway. I’d rather just transfer extra points when I have them!

I've rented several times in the past. No more! I just did my first transfer thru the site sponsor.

 

[Madame]

I've tried to keep up with this this fast thread, but have missed 15-20 pages along the way. Would anyone care to safety check this?

I have a reservation mid-May with borrowed points. Since I can (currently) reclaim the points, I reached out to my renter to check their intentions for their trip and make them aware that I can refund the 70% I have received. They stated they are cancelling trip, and yes I should go ahead and cancel/reclaim the points (which I haven't yet). I emailed David's to confirm but I'm getting no reply; hopefully because they are taking them on reservation date, but I have no idea.

Obviously I am worried about the borrowed points policy changing while we wait. I would rather give it back directly to the renter, but if they pursue a voucher then no problem giving it back to David's. BUT, if the points policy changes, I am less inclined to return money especially when I seem to be the only one working on this for a couple weeks now.

Would you cancel the reservation, reclaim the points, and just wait for David's to ask for the 70%? The renter stated to do this (email), so I wouldn't expect a claim for travel damages, etc. I don't see how David's can claim damages if they are keeping commission and I make the 70% fully available. Thanks!

I am in in the exact same position. Do not cancel the reservation nor refund the renter. Let DVC cancel. Wait until your points are unborrowed and refund David’s. If DVC changes the policy before the reservation is cancelled, you’ll have to decide what to do. I posted a screenshot of David’s response (apparently citing their lawyer) several pages back. They are claiming that if points get stuck, owner must return the 70% anyway...

 

[McCrae]

As just mentioned, you would be in violation of your contact. The thing is that even if you return the 70% to Davids, he has made it clear that he will not be giving it to your renters,

So, you are really stuck at the points to keep it as is, and let your renters know that per the information you have heard about Davids, is that funds are not being returned to renters, even when owners are willing,

Unless you get it in writing from Davids allowing you to cancel and his assurance it will go to your renters, I’d not go that route,

Agreed. Best to wait until Disney cancels the reservation.

 

[mustinjourney]

David does business in Canada, it has nothing to do with Florida, just like if I set up a timeshare rental firm in the UK selling Florida rentals, no government body anywhere in the USA could do anything about it even if they didn't like what I was doing as like in Canada they have zero jurisdiction here.

pretty sure he would satisfy the "minimal contacts" needed to establish that he does business in the US. But it's been a while since I took Civ. Pro., so I could be wrong.

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

There is a real reality to standing in front of a judge, as a potential voter, as a person in his/her district or county suffering damage to an out of state/out of country business that seems to be gaming people.
I think the 'public policy' of each state in stopping that is fairly strong whether basic fairness or some type of consumer protection.
"Erie" this comes up isn't it?

pretty sure he would satisfy the "minimal contacts" needed to establish that he does business in the US. But it's been a while since I took Civ. Pro., so I could be wrong.

 

[yankeesfan123]

Now go do research on unsecured transactions....and similarly, what it takes to enforce a judgment. In short, even if the renter is supposed to get their money back, not only would they have to spend a decent amount of money to go to court (and likely hire an attorney as well) and win -- but THEN, they'd have to spend more money trying to collect on the judgment.

And if David's is more or less bankrupt -- that's no good. And the owners of the contract, depending on the state they live in, could be judgment proof. Unlike the IRS, you can't garnish wages or threaten jailtime.

Additionally -- it's beyond unlikely for a contract victor to be awarded extra damages for a breach of contract (and in this case -- it's not even a breach).

Lastly -- as for "unjust enrichment" -- if the DVC owners used points that are about to expire and Disney is not letting them do anything with those points, the DVC owner is not be unjustly enriched. If anything -- they're still not getting the last 30% they bargained for.

Even if the owner gets the points back with only a few weeks of use and the money... they’re still unjustly enriched, to at least some minimal degree.

 

[yankeesfan123]

pretty sure he would satisfy the "minimal contacts" needed to establish that he does business in the US. But it's been a while since I took Civ. Pro., so I could be wrong.

Minimal contacts means incredibly little if the contract

 

[YourEveryDayAdam]

deleted

 

[mustinjourney]

I wonder how many reservations they're dealing with during this period, how many points? How much $ they are expected to refund in total to renters if everyone who has rented is expecting a full refund? At $20 a point, if there's 500 reservations at 200 points, he'd be expected to refund $1m....how big of an operation is David's? There's not many businesses that would be able to just hand that amount of money back to people out of profit.

It does seem a real shame this whole situation - if you look online everywhere and he's good 5* reviews every where. His review page on his website has 623 pages of positive reviews!

It seems as though they are not handling this situation particularly well, but in a blink of an eye, they have gone from a very good business, to one that could be expected to hand out millions in compensation through no fault of their own.

My point is that if Covid-19 wasn't here, everyone on this thread would be singing their praises because they'd be enjoying a brilliant holiday to Disney. It's just really sad and I feel sorry for all parties involved.

it's all relative though. If you had 500 ressies at 200 points for one month -- then presumably you have been doing that same business for quite some time. If so -- you SHOULD have a significant savings to weather this storm.

500 reservations at 200 points at $20 per point yields $2million in cash coming in. $4.5 per point goes towards his operating revenue ($450k), and $14.5 per point goes to the owners (70% now and 30% SHOULD be in an escrow account of some sort) -- So $14.5*200*500*.7 is $1.015 million to owners and $435k to his escrow account.

Maybe I'm crazy -- but I would think that a company with this type of revenue would want to keep at least 3 or 4 million in the bank as a rainy day fund.

And let's not forget he also should have money coming in from his travel agent side as well.


Notwithstanding the above -- the actions currently being taken are incredibly short sighted. He's managed to completely alienate his suppliers (owners) and piss off the buyers. Even if he can get past the closings -- I'm not sure he's going to make it long term. And it certainly won't be at the same level he was previously at.

 

[mustinjourney]

I am going to reiterate on this post what I have said previously. I am not a lawyer. I am not providing legal advice. I am just a law nerd who watches a LOT of boring you tube about this kind of stuff. If you want to know about what you should do to protect your interests in your situation, contact a lawyer. I am simply offering a legal hypothesis about how I think these kinds of situations would play out. This whole situation is a hot mess and there's a fair chance i'm wrong.

You are not wrong on the difficulty for the renter getting a judgement against David's. This is why i'm suggesting that the renters go the chargeback route, if they still can. The credit card companies will attempt to take the money back from David's. They will very likely return the money to the renter, even if the credit card companies are successful or not in getting the money back from David's. Please see my previous post in this thread regarding Credit Card chargebacks and how they work for an explanation as to why the renter would still get their money back, even if David's is bankrupt, skips town, stonewalls, etc.

I literally talk about the difficulty in going after money in a lawsuit in the exact post of mine that you quoted. Litigating against someone IS risky, expensive, and SLOW. Now I do discuss it from the perspective of David's going after the DVC Owners for the 70% he's already paid them. Most of the same points I bring up would be true for renters who wanted to file a suit against David's. Although, there is a fair chance of a class-action suit since there are MANY owners and/or renters who may be due money from David's...but again, slow, risky, and expensive. Chargebacks are generally quick, easy, and (I believe) have a high chance of success in this situation.

I still believe the "unjust encrichment" argument I pose is still valid, IF the contract were being litigated under US law. If/when the contract is declared by a judge to fall under the Doctrine of Impossibility...THE WHOLE THING get's tossed. Not just part of it. ALL of it. Essentially the judge declares that "everything will be as if the contract and transaction never existed at all." He waves his magic gavel, and your points are now yours, David's money is now his. The problem is that you are now in possession of David's money. Hence why it's unjust enrichment...you now possess money that, legally, belongs to another. He could, in theory, file a suit to get that money back.

When you said "the DVC owner is not be unjustly enriched." you are applying the term broadly, when I am using it in a very narrow legal definition. I do agree with your broad application: You did everything right. You acted in good faith. This was not your fault. You thought you would be protected. David's contract said you would be paid the remaining money on check in day. You did nothing wrong. I agree with all of that. But NONE of that matters since, legally, that contract would no longer exist. Which basically means that you received payment when nothing of value was provided in return. The REASON that "nothing of value was provided in return" is because the judge voided your whole contract and transaction. In the eyes of the law, it never happened...was never signed...everybody gets everything back...complete undo.

I understand that your points may be in a state that puts them in distress...there's a fair chance they can no longer be banked, they expire soon, or some other reason that you can no longer get the value of your points. But they are YOUR points and now, since there is no longer a contract (since it's been voided by the court), that's YOUR problem...not David's. What becomes your problem (from the court's perspective) is that you've now got a bunch of David's money.

Is that the right thing? No. I am not presenting what's right. I'm presenting what I think will happen if this got litigated in a US court.

...But...fortunately, David's own contract says that it isn't governed under the laws of the US...it's governed under the laws of Canada and Ontario. And THAT version of this legal doctrine is a bit more friendly, I believe, towards the owners.

Please read my whole post above as to details about what I THINK would happen in a Canadian court. Short version:

There's a chance that David's could be found to have provided an implied insurance/guarantee on his end. If so, he could be on the hook to you for the full amount. Maybe the judge cuts the difference and says you get to keep your 70% and David's doesn't have to pay the remaining 30%.

If the judge finds that David's DIDN'T provide an implied insurance/guarantee, then the contract would fall to the Doctrine of Frustration under Canadian contract law. This is very similar to what I said before...compete undo. You get your points back, David's gets his money back...BUT there is a process in the law here that allows you to claim expenses for what you've done so far.
I think that if your points are in a distressed state, you could make a claim for your cost in providing those points. (cost you paid to purchase those points for that one year, maintenance fees, etc.) If your points are not in a distressed state (i.e. they can be banked, still valid, Disney returns borrowed points to their original use year, etc.) then you likely won't get to claim anything and would have to return the full amount to David's.

Now the amount you can claim WON'T be the amount specified you would be paid in the contract. You don't get to make a profit. It is limited to your REASONABLE costs in owning the points. This is why I say the cost you paid for the points for the one year, plus annual dues, maybe you can claim some misc. expenses as well. I don't know what would and would not be allowed. That would likely be determined by a long precedence of Canadian case law that i'm not going to research. I am guessing the amount would be roughly half of the total amount of money you would've gotten in total from David's.

I do believe the Canadian way of doing things is probably the most FAIR to David's and the Owner. The pain is shared between them.

I'll save you the time -- I am an attorney.

I was trying to help you out. Wasting time and effort on surmising what may or may not happen it court is a fool's errand if you can't ultimately collect the money. THAT was the point of my post.

 

[dragonflymom]

I am in in the exact same position. Do not cancel the reservation nor refund the renter. Let DVC cancel. Wait until your points are unborrowed and refund David’s. If DVC changes the policy before the reservation is cancelled, you’ll have to decide what to do. I posted a screenshot of David’s response (apparently citing their lawyer) several pages back. They are claiming that if points get stuck, owner must return the 70% anyway...

I am in a similar situation (mid-May reservation and also having reached out to renter offering to reschedule but they don't want to travel in next 12 months and already cancelled air, dining plan, etc.) In my case, half my points are banked points expiring this Aug. and half are current UY points that can still be salvaged if I bank by April 30. I am leaning towards cancelling my reservation rather than waiting for Disney to do so so that I don't miss the banking deadline. I would be returning my 70% to David's. I realize I am breaching in this scenario but I am also returning the money. The renter is super nice and we have exchanged multiple texts so I am pretty she won't come after me, in fact she indicated she would love to rent directly from me in the future once her family feels safe to travel again, so any other risk I need to worry about?

 

[dsnymnkyuncle]

I am going to reiterate on this post what I have said previously. I am not a lawyer. I am not providing legal advice. I am just a law nerd who watches a LOT of boring you tube about this kind of stuff. If you want to know about what you should do to protect your interests in your situation, contact a lawyer. I am simply offering a legal hypothesis about how I think these kinds of situations would play out. This whole situation is a hot mess and there's a fair chance i'm wrong.

You are not wrong on the difficulty for the renter getting a judgement against David's. This is why i'm suggesting that the renters go the chargeback route, if they still can. The credit card companies will attempt to take the money back from David's. They will very likely return the money to the renter, even if the credit card companies are successful or not in getting the money back from David's. Please see my previous post in this thread regarding Credit Card chargebacks and how they work for an explanation as to why the renter would still get their money back, even if David's is bankrupt, skips town, stonewalls, etc.

I literally talk about the difficulty in going after money in a lawsuit in the exact post of mine that you quoted. Litigating against someone IS risky, expensive, and SLOW. Now I do discuss it from the perspective of David's going after the DVC Owners for the 70% he's already paid them. Most of the same points I bring up would be true for renters who wanted to file a suit against David's. Although, there is a fair chance of a class-action suit since there are MANY owners and/or renters who may be due money from David's...but again, slow, risky, and expensive. Chargebacks are generally quick, easy, and (I believe) have a high chance of success in this situation.

I still believe the "unjust encrichment" argument I pose is still valid, IF the contract were being litigated under US law. If/when the contract is declared by a judge to fall under the Doctrine of Impossibility...THE WHOLE THING get's tossed. Not just part of it. ALL of it. Essentially the judge declares that "everything will be as if the contract and transaction never existed at all." He waves his magic gavel, and your points are now yours, David's money is now his. The problem is that you are now in possession of David's money. Hence why it's unjust enrichment...you now possess money that, legally, belongs to another. He could, in theory, file a suit to get that money back.

When you said "the DVC owner is not be unjustly enriched." you are applying the term broadly, when I am using it in a very narrow legal definition. I do agree with your broad application: You did everything right. You acted in good faith. This was not your fault. You thought you would be protected. David's contract said you would be paid the remaining money on check in day. You did nothing wrong. I agree with all of that. But NONE of that matters since, legally, that contract would no longer exist. Which basically means that you received payment when nothing of value was provided in return. The REASON that "nothing of value was provided in return" is because the judge voided your whole contract and transaction. In the eyes of the law, it never happened...was never signed...everybody gets everything back...complete undo.

I understand that your points may be in a state that puts them in distress...there's a fair chance they can no longer be banked, they expire soon, or some other reason that you can no longer get the value of your points. But they are YOUR points and now, since there is no longer a contract (since it's been voided by the court), that's YOUR problem...not David's. What becomes your problem (from the court's perspective) is that you've now got a bunch of David's money.

Is that the right thing? No. I am not presenting what's right. I'm presenting what I think will happen if this got litigated in a US court.

...But...fortunately, David's own contract says that it isn't governed under the laws of the US...it's governed under the laws of Canada and Ontario. And THAT version of this legal doctrine is a bit more friendly, I believe, towards the owners.

Please read my whole post above as to details about what I THINK would happen in a Canadian court. Short version:

There's a chance that David's could be found to have provided an implied insurance/guarantee on his end. If so, he could be on the hook to you for the full amount. Maybe the judge cuts the difference and says you get to keep your 70% and David's doesn't have to pay the remaining 30%.

If the judge finds that David's DIDN'T provide an implied insurance/guarantee, then the contract would fall to the Doctrine of Frustration under Canadian contract law. This is very similar to what I said before...compete undo. You get your points back, David's gets his money back...BUT there is a process in the law here that allows you to claim expenses for what you've done so far.
I think that if your points are in a distressed state, you could make a claim for your cost in providing those points. (cost you paid to purchase those points for that one year, maintenance fees, etc.) If your points are not in a distressed state (i.e. they can be banked, still valid, Disney returns borrowed points to their original use year, etc.) then you likely won't get to claim anything and would have to return the full amount to David's.

Now the amount you can claim WON'T be the amount specified you would be paid in the contract. You don't get to make a profit. It is limited to your REASONABLE costs in owning the points. This is why I say the cost you paid for the points for the one year, plus annual dues, maybe you can claim some misc. expenses as well. I don't know what would and would not be allowed. That would likely be determined by a long precedence of Canadian case law that i'm not going to research. I am guessing the amount would be roughly half of the total amount of money you would've gotten in total from David's.

I do believe the Canadian way of doing things is probably the most FAIR to David's and the Owner. The pain is shared between them.

Great job of research. Really enjoy reading your posts. I would only add that in court these types of cases are so fact dependent the case could come down to how many time an owner rented. The current incident is my first time renting in 6 years. OTH it seems common that other posters are renting multiple times a year. A smart person suing that owner might allege it is not a consumer transaction at all but rather a regular course of business. that would move the goal posts.

Lot to think about