Davids DVC: Rental reimbursement or rescheduling?

[lovethesun12]

It’s an OPTION. It doesn’t have to be the only solution. You asked WHY owners and renters would want to get in touch with each other. I told you why. SHEESH! Are you this argumentative IRL?

Let’s see...David’s way:
Owner returns whatever money David’s sent them to date. Owner walks away with points that are severely damaged due to David’s dragging their feet and not allowing owner to work directly with the renter. Renter gets a voucher that they may or may not be able to use before it expires.. David’s stays somewhat solvent but reputation with owners is tarnished.

I'm not argumentative at all if you reread my post in a different tone possibly? I just don't really agree with you. I think they are acting as a third party.

 

[CraigInPA]

David's DVC is most likely set up as an LLC which means only the company assets are at risk (none of the owners property can be seized or taken to repay debt) , since this company does not manufacture any product and most likely only consists of employees, leased office space and equipment the only real asset of any value would be David's Goodwill. Right now his company is trying to maneuver thru this to save the goodwill since if it declares bankruptcy they will have to start from scratch and build the business back up which has taken them years to get to where they are now.

Goodwill is also an accounting term which means that the strict value of the acquired company is less than what the purchaser has paid. It appears on the balance sheet. This is the only time that Goodwill has a stated monetary value.

If David's goes bankrupt, I doubt any buyer will want to use his company name as it is now tainted. The value of his company is his customer lists and website, and perhaps some software they may have custom developed to make this process work.

 

[lovethesun12]

Under US law, no party to a contract has a responsibility to mitigate damages to another party.

You've also greatly simplified the relationship of the parties, which is how a court would determine who takes the loss.

The owner has a separate agreement with David's which laid out the number of points, when they expire, and how much David's is to pay and when. The payment terms are 70% of the fee at booking, and 30% on check-in day, regardless of whether the renter checks in. David's has, apparently, breached that agreement by withholding the 30% payment for rentals which occurred when the resort was closed, and is asking owners to re-book and wait on that payment until the new reservation check in date or to refund the deposit payment. While the resort closure we now face was not contemplated by the contract, the broker, who drafted the contract, knew that such a situation could and has occurred in the past. If the situation was known, and the broker chose not to include it in the agreement, he cannot then unilaterally re-write the agreement to benefit himself. David's owes the final payment on the original check-in date. Period. Full Stop. Anything else the owner and David's agrees to do is open to negotiation, not what David's says will happen.

The renter has an agreement for a room reservation with a no-refunds and no-changes clause. Strictly under the contract terms, the renter is losing everything. Under consumer protection laws which may be in effect based upon where the parties are located, which supersede the contract terms, the renter is due a full refund. David's has offered a voucher program instead of refunds. Whether that is legal under Canadian law is a question that hasn't been addressed.

But double dipping is illegal so that would complicate things if the owner used the points or re-rented them, which is why mitigating damages is discussed.

Also, I guess every contract is different but mine specifically says "the owner agrees to provide you with a reservation from date x to date y". I'm not sure it would work in their favor if it came to that because I have not been provided with a reservation for those dates.

But really I do not want to go down that route, at all. I would simply like to have a new reservation.

 

[starry_solo]

Under US law, no party to a contract has a responsibility to mitigate damages to another party.

You've also greatly simplified the relationship of the parties, which is how a court would determine who takes the loss.

The owner has a separate agreement with David's which laid out the number of points, when they expire, and how much David's is to pay and when. The payment terms are 70% of the fee at booking, and 30% on check-in day, regardless of whether the renter checks in. David's has, apparently, breached that agreement by withholding the 30% payment for rentals which occurred when the resort was closed, and is asking owners to re-book and wait on that payment until the new reservation check in date or to refund the deposit payment. While the resort closure we now face was not contemplated by the contract, the broker, who drafted the contract, knew that such a situation could and has occurred in the past. If the situation was known, and the broker chose not to include it in the agreement, he cannot then unilaterally re-write the agreement to benefit himself. David's owes the final payment on the original check-in date. Period. Full Stop. Anything else the owner and David's agrees to do is open to negotiation, not what David's says will happen.

The renter has an agreement for a room reservation with a no-refunds and no-changes clause. Strictly under the contract terms, the renter is losing everything. Under consumer protection laws which may be in effect based upon where the parties are located, which supersede the contract terms, the renter is due a full refund. David's has offered a voucher program instead of refunds. Whether that is legal under Canadian law is a question that hasn't been addressed.

doesn’t US law also have something called third party beneficiaries? the renter is the TPB of the contract between the owner and David’s. The owner is the TPB of the contract between the renter and David’s. That sort of thing....

 

[CraigInPA]

But double dipping is illegal so that would complicate things if the owner used the points or re-rented them, which is why mitigating damages is discussed.

Please cite the law which states that "double dipping is illegal".

You won't find one that covers this situation, not even under consumer protection law. Why is that? Because the owner's agreement with David's (a corporation) requires the owner to do specific tasks, which they did. The risk is upon David's to monetize the resulting reservation. If David's cannot monetize the reservation under the terms of the contract, David's takes the loss. While consumers are generally protected against paying something for nothing, corporations are not.

You also seem to be under the belief that the owner and renter have a contract that excludes David's and supersedes the agreements in place between them and David's. That is not the case. You need to look at all 3 contracts to understand why David's is actually responsible to both parties, but neither the owner nor renter have a responsibility to each other beyond the owner not cancelling the reservation made (which no one can argue is the case in this situation).

 

[cmrdgrs]

It honestly seems like David’s has taken the stance that they are not losing any of their money in this, with the argument that they have to pay their people. Guess what, people all over the world or losing their jobs or taking pay cuts. Just because David’s deals with a luxury product doesn’t mean all of his clients can afford to lose money and he shouldn’t have to.

For this reason, some Disney boards and other sources of Disney information have cut ties with David's and will no longer recommend their services anymore.

 

[Bearval]

Goodwill is also an accounting term which means that the strict value of the acquired company is less than what the purchaser has paid. It appears on the balance sheet. This is the only time that Goodwill has a stated monetary value.

If David's goes bankrupt, I doubt any buyer will want to use his company name as it is now tainted. The value of his company is his customer lists and website, and perhaps some software they may have custom developed to make this process work.

Yes ,goodwill is an intangible asset that has value and example would be buying out a well know popular bakery just so you can put your products in their boxes to sell. The point i was trying to make is a company like David's is most likely trying to mitigate damages to the brand without incurring substantial losses and most likely will fold if the losses will exceed what they feel the value of saving the brand is as opposed to starting up a new comlany.

 

[CraigInPA]

doesn’t US law also have something called third party beneficiaries? the renter is the TPB of the contract between the owner and David’s. The owner is the TPB of the contract between the renter and David’s. That sort of thing....

TPB's have to be specified in the contracts between the parties to give the TPB any standing. Typically, to cover all the bases, contracts have a "no third party beneficiaries" clause.

Let me give you an example, if I donate the cost of a baseball field to the local school, I would usually write a check to the school, and the school would then enter into a direct agreement with the contractor to do the work. Alternatively, I could write a contract with the contractor which specifies that the school, as a TPB, gets to choose where the baseball field goes.

 

[Sandisw]

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.

Typically, yes, But, in this situation, when adjustments are being done, the owners have reach out to David’s to get permission to contact so they can get the renter rebooked, which is a win win for everyone.

But, David’s wants to do the vouchers so he has decided to amend all the contracts this way, Owners cant cancel because it’s a breach, However, by waiting for Disney, some owners will end up with points they can no longer bank which means, no way to mitigate the loss especially when all David’s seems to want now is the money back.

 

[TheWheel]

Please cite the law which states that "double dipping is illegal".

You won't find one that covers this situation, not even under consumer protection law. Why is that? Because the owner's agreement with David's (a corporation) requires the owner to do specific tasks, which they did. The risk is upon David's to monetize the resulting reservation. If David's cannot monetize the reservation under the terms of the contract, David's takes the loss. While consumers are generally protected against paying something for nothing, corporations are not.

You also seem to be under the belief that the owner and renter have a contract that excludes David's and supersedes the agreements in place between them and David's. That is not the case. You need to look at all 3 contracts to understand why David's is actually responsible to both parties, but neither the owner nor renter have a responsibility to each other beyond the owner not cancelling the reservation made (which no one can argue is the case in this situation).

I'd say the argument could be made that the owner through its agent (DVC) did in fact cancel the reservation. While all would agree it was the correct thing to do, the government did not shut down hotels, the owner(s) did.

 

[lovethesun12]

Please cite the law which states that "double dipping is illegal".

You won't find one that covers this situation, not even under consumer protection law. Why is that? Because the owner's agreement with David's (a corporation) requires the owner to do specific tasks, which they did. The risk is upon David's to monetize the resulting reservation. If David's cannot monetize the reservation under the terms of the contract, David's takes the loss. While consumers are generally protected against paying something for nothing, corporations are not.

You also seem to be under the belief that the owner and renter have a contract that excludes David's and supersedes the agreements in place between them and David's. That is not the case. You need to look at all 3 contracts to understand why David's is actually responsible to both parties, but neither the owner nor renter have a responsibility to each other beyond the owner not cancelling the reservation made (which no one can argue is the case in this situation).

My contract says the owner is to provide me with a reservation with arrival on date x and departure on date y. Explain to me how you think the owner has done the task of providing me with that if I am unable to check in on arrival date, have no reservation for the length of stay, and have no reservation on the departure date.

Again I am absolutely not saying this is the owners, David's (I am actually not with David's, if I was I would be happy right now because I know I at least may have a chance at a new reservation without having to jump through hoops), or my fault. I am not blaming anyone. I think everyone is entitled to something and unfortunately may lose something. But back to my point - making the assumption that you're an owner and can walk away may not be the correct assumption.

 

[Dentam]

Question: how can David's amend existing contracts that both parties have already signed?

 

[CarolMN]

Please state your opinions respectfully. It is not necessary to call out other posters for their opinions. From the DIS POSTING GUIDELINES:

We do not believe in censorship, and open discussions about various issues is encouraged. When participating in a thread, we ask that everyone be treated with respect and that our guidelines be followed. If we find that an individual is disruptive and is unable to follow our rules, he/she will be barred from participating on our site.

 

[cmrdgrs]

Because this is an unprecedented situation? If you would rather do it that way, good for you. Others may not have a warm and fuzzy with how David's is handling the situation.

Edit: Additionally, for some people like myself, it is their first time renting. If it is your first time why wouldn't you go through David's? It makes perfect sense, does it not? However, we all got slapped in the face with this and are trying to navigate it.

I have a friend that rented through David's, but her reservation is in December. Here was her thinking on contacting the owner directly:

Her thought on looking up the owner using public records (and they have a very unique name) is that if David's folds she plans to offer the owners the additional 30% that the broker was not able to pay out. Yes, she paid the broker in full, but she figures paying the owner directly the 30% they didn't get paid from the broker is less money than a new rental or a hotel room.

The broker's goal is keep owners and renters separate to protect their base of DVC owners. The last thing a broker wants is for renters to find a decent/reliable owner and bypass their services.

 

[cmrdgrs]

Question: how can David's amend existing contracts that both parties have already signed?

The broker can't amend what has been signed.

But, let's face it -- no one is taking a Canadian company to court. I haven't seen their contract, but I'd assume that it says any lawsuit has to be settled in Canada. At least if you are dealing with a Broker in the US you could potentially go to small claims court for some amount of money. You still would have to travel to that state, but US laws would apply. International lawsuits have to go through Federal courts I believe. Not happening IMO.

 

[Grnl706]

I have a friend that rented through David's, but her reservation is in December. Here was her thinking on contacting the owner directly:

Her thought on looking up the owner using public records (and they have a very unique name) is that if David's folds she plans to offer the owners the additional 30% that the broker was not able to pay out. Yes, she paid the broker in full, but she figures paying the owner directly the 30% they didn't get paid from the broker is less money than a new rental or a hotel room.

The broker's goal is keep owners and renters separate to protect their base of DVC owners. The last thing a broker wants is for renters to find a decent/reliable owner and bypass their services.

I have the same thinking as your friend and you make a very valid point. David's needs us separate for their survival. I wanted to try to help mitigate my owners losses too which I can't do without contacting them. It doesn't seem like David's is doing much for the owners.

 

[Sandisw]

The broker can't amend what has been signed.

But, let's face it -- no one is taking a Canadian company to court. I haven't seen their contract, but I'd assume that it says any lawsuit has to be settled in Canada. At least if you are dealing with a Broker in the US you could potentially go to small claims court for some amount of money. You still would have to travel to that state, but US laws would apply. International lawsuits have to go through Federal courts I believe. Not happening IMO.

True, but an owner who decides to not return the 70% and reschedules the renter on their own, and then lets David’s know what they are doing, would need to be gone after by David’s, if he wants to claim breach.

Im not confident that David will go to that extreme against owners, especially since his business would not survive that, once word got out,

It is just sad that he is holding owners to the terms of the contract that he decided are important....wait for Disney to cancel...but doesn’t care that if it is canceled sooner, the owner could get back usable points to use for that or any renter,

My August rental through him will be the only time as an owner I will use him. That is for sure.

 

[DisneyBB]

I have two rentals coming up just at the end of my use year. Does anyone know if the contract forbids us talking to the renter? I can't see anything in the agreement to say so. Surely if it doesn't say anything we can just contact them and have a conversation. I feel stuck between a rock and hard place at the moment.

 

[cmrdgrs]

True, but an owner who decides to not return the 70% and reschedules the renter on their own, and then lets David’s know what they are doing, would need to be gone after by David’s, if he wants to claim breach.

Im not confident that David will go to that extreme against owners, especially since his business would not survive that, once word got out,

It is just sad that he is holding owners to the terms of the contract that he decided are important....wait for Disney to cancel...but doesn’t care that if it is canceled sooner, the owner could get back usable points to use for that or any renter,

My August rental through him will be the only time as an owner I will use him. That is for sure.

And visa-versa. A Canandian broker is not going to take who-knows-how-many individual owners to court. Just isn't going to happen.

I'm not in this position, but if I was an owner who rented through a broker, I would try to find my renter directly. It's already slim pickings out there for availability. The longer this goes on, and depending on my UY, the less chance I can fulfill my rental agreement waiting on the broker.

 

[Sandisw]

I have two rentals coming up just at the end of my use year. Does anyone know if the contract forbids us talking to the renter? I can't see anything in the agreement to say so. Surely if it doesn't say anything we can just contact them and have a conversation. I feel stuck between a rock and hard place at the moment.

There is nothing that prohibits that action, But, the contract does prohibit an owners changing or canceling on their own,

There in lies the problem as many owners who want to help renters now, are being stopped by David’s, so that when Disney cancels and not the owner, the renter can’t claim a refund, and the owner then has to return the money or offer points again,

If an owner has expiring points, then their only option is return the money, or chance Davids going after them,