Do you think this is what is confussing CM and Guests?

[bicker]

The problem as I see it is the changing rules. The adding of the "non-transferable" terminology (in small print I might add) AFTER people make reservations and payments.

No, that rule has always been there, as has the rule that Disney can change the rules without notice.

If it is essential that you know what you're going to get, then you really need to elect to NOT get the Dining Plan. By purchasing the Dining Plan, you are agreeing to follow Disney's lead with regard to the specifics. All you are purchasing is an agreement that the people who you listed in your reservation will get 1TS meal, 1CS meal and 1 snack, for each night of the reservation, and that you can have those folks combine TS credits to use for signature meals. That's it.

 

[bicker]

Teens may order from the children's menu, however, the credit will still be deducted from your plan.

Interesting.....I would think you would be allowed to have teens order from the children's menu and pay for it out of pocket. I for one, would not be interested in paying for an adult meal plan and then using it for kids meals.

It is interesting. This is the first I've read of an official Disney source stating that purchasing a child meal for a teen would (conceptually) result in paying the regular price. We've know that, in practice, that's often the case, but it is interesting to see it in writing now.

 

[bicker]

I went back and re-read the brochure and I don't find that "agreement" in there...unless you're talking about the standard boilerplate language about the rules of the plan may be changed at any time without notice.

So, then, you did find that agreement in there.

"Standard boilerplate language" is actually the core of most commercial agreements. If you don't like what the "standard boilerplate language" says, then don't buy the product or service.

My point on the "treating" question is that I think that IS one of many areas where the brochure is either silent or vague. And I doubt if that is by accident. I'm sure Disney left it vague and silent to make the plan more marketable and to allow themselves flexibility.

Yes, including the flexibility to regulate under what circumstances they'll allow it. If having that ability is essential for you to consider the Dining Plan worthwhile, then do not elect to have the Dining Plan.

"Treating" incidently, is a minomer. Since your Dining Plan purchase entitles you to meals for yourself (i.e., the people in your party), giving some of that to anyone else isn't "treating" unless as a result you're going to have to pay more yourself later, an in which case it would be silly to complicate things to do so. If you want to treat someone else, pay for their food OOP.

 

[bicker]

First, when the brochure states that "components and terms are subject to change without notice," this does not mean that Disney may modify the rules on a whim without ever telling us what the rules are. I agree that they are free to change the rules anytime for any reason without informing us in advance that a change is coming. Once the rules are changed, however, they must notify us what those new rules are in order for them to apply. It takes two sides to make an agreement, and if you have a condition in your mind but fail to tell me about it, then it's not part of the agreement.

I don't think I see the nuance you're talking about. All they need to do is enforce the new rule at the time of the meal. That is sufficient notice when the agreement says, very specifically, as is the case here, "without notice". Disney is more direct about ensuring that you have notice by having you inform your server that you're on the Dining Plan. If you don't, and are surprised by a matter of enforcement about some rule later, it is your own fault.

Second, if the brochure is vague or silent about something, that becomes Disney's problem, not ours. A very basic part of contract law is a doctrine called contra proferentum, which essentially means that any ambiguity in an agreement is construed against the party who selected the language.

Except in cases where there is a valid exculpatory clause. This practice is reasonable and customary in the industry. It is therefore allowed.

Regardless, I was being charitable by saying that the brochure was vague. It really isn't. It says that the members of your part can have 1TS, 1CS and 1 snack for each night of the reservation, and can combine TS credits to enjoy signature meals. That's it. Anything else anyone wants to do with the Dining Plan is their own fabrication, based on what they wish the brochure actually said.

 

[cgbsilver@hotmail.co]

I don't think I see the nuance you're talking about. All they need to do is enforce the new rule at the time of the meal. That is sufficient notice when the agreement says, very specifically, as is the case here, "without notice". Disney is more direct about ensuring that you have notice by having you inform your server that you're on the Dining Plan. If you don't, and are surprised by a matter of enforcement about some rule later, it is your own fault.

Except in cases where there is a valid exculpatory clause. This practice is reasonable and customary in the industry. It is therefore allowed.

Regardless, I was being charitable by saying that the brochure was vague. It really isn't. It says that the members of your part can have 1TS, 1CS and 1 snack for each night of the reservation, and can combine TS credits to enjoy signature meals. That's it. Anything else anyone wants to do with the Dining Plan is their own fabrication, based on what they wish the brochure actually said.

NOT REALLY. Also From the Brochure.
Using Your Meals
e Use your meals and snacks in any order and in any amount throughout your
package stay until your total is depleted.
e For example, on the day of arrival your party could use four (4) Quick Service
meals, and then on day 2 your party could use four (4) Table Service Meals, four
(4) Quick Service Meals, and two (2) Snacks. You can continue using meals any
way you like for the rest of your package stay until the number of meals/snacks
are depleted.

 

[minnie61650]

I don't think "treating" is what they are talking about when they say "non-transferrable."

I think "non-transferrable" means "non-transferrable." Meaning you cannot use it for anyone other than whom it was purchased for.

Park tickets are "non-transferrable". Using your reasoning : If you bought a park hopper ticket for 10 days does it mean if you decide you want to treat "cousin Fred" to a day than after you go thru the entrance you hand your ticket to "cousin Fred " than he enters and than both of you can enjoy a day at the park?--Of course you gave up one of your days--but it was your ticketand if you want to you should be able to treat "cousin Fred" Right?

I understand you would like to use your credits the way you want.

Many guests also felt that way about the old park hopper passes.
They too were nontransferable.

But since the guest paid for them and had extra days some thought they could just give it to a friend or better yet sell them on ebay. After all it was their ticket and they could do with it what they wanted to. They did pay for it right?

What happened?
Disney installed the Bioscans so the tickets cannot be shared.
That is how Disney had to put a stop to tickets so they would not be shared.
Now guests are complaining the scans don't always work right and they slow everyone down getting into the parks.

The deliberate misuse of the tickets caused a change in entering the parks.

Now Disney is tightening the loop holes of the DDP because many guests have been deliberately misusing the DDP.
Just my 2 cents

 

[frndofpooh]

Except in cases where there is a valid exculpatory clause. This practice is reasonable and customary in the industry. It is therefore allowed.

Regardless, I was being charitable by saying that the brochure was vague. It really isn't. It says that the members of your part can have 1TS, 1CS and 1 snack for each night of the reservation, and can combine TS credits to enjoy signature meals. That's it. Anything else anyone wants to do with the Dining Plan is their own fabrication, based on what they wish the brochure actually said.

I don't understand your point about an exculpatory clause. An exculpatory clause is typically considered a clause which releases someone from liability for his or her own negligence as long as he or she acts in good faith. I don't see the connection to an issue concerning the interpretation of vague language, nor do I see anything in the dining plan brochure that I would consider an exculpatory clause. I'm sorry if I am misunderstanding this, but I really don't understand this point.

The brochure also clearly says a lot more than "the members of your part can have 1TS, 1CS and 1 snack for each night of the reservation, and can combine TS credits to enjoy signature meals. That's it. " It goes on for 5 pages. Most of those 5 pages tell me how flexible the plan is and how many different options I have. If Disney wanted to create a dining plan providing 1 TS, 1CS and 1 snack per person for use each day, they certainly could do so. But that's not what they created. They could, for example, assign credits to each person rather than to the group collectively, but they did not do that. They could change the plan tomorrow, but I would expect them to tell me about that change before I handed over my money.

 

[Pedler]

They could change the plan tomorrow, but I would expect them to tell me about that change before I handed over my money.

The language in the brochure does give them the right to change the plan at will after you hand over the money. It really isn't any different than if they change the park hours, closings, do way with or add EMH or change what places are 1 or 2 TS credits. We may not like it but they do have the ability to do that. That little clause gives them the ability. Now if they were to make any substantial changes I would expect that you could make a case to cancel your reservation without a penalty but I don't think you can force them to provide the services as it was stated when you purchased the dinning plan. The best you could hope for is to cancel without penalty and then I think it would have to be a substantial change.

Welcome to the world of one sided travel agreements. Its kind of like the airlines. You can book a non cancellable non transferrable reservation and if you want to change it even to a later flight on the same day then you most likely will pay a penalty. If on the other hand the airline changes the time of the flight say taking a 6:00 am flight and making it 5:00 am they have no penalty.

 

[akalittleeva]

I'm just looking for consistency - if Disney changes the rules or starts enforcing them more clearly, I would like to see it across the board, not hit or miss. Right now, it seems to be hit or miss. I don't want to go to one CS and get a bottle of water and the at the next CS be told it is not included in the DDP, same goes for sharing. If the restaurants are participating in the DDP, the rules should be the same for all of them, not left up to the discretion of the manager/server. That leaves too many things open to interpretation and confusion for everyone. I know it is 1TS/1CS/1 snack per person right now, which for a lot of people seems cut and dry, but I think Disney does portray it as being a lot more flexible and hassle free in the brochure. Some people may not think that being told you can not share, or the nonalcoholic drink the brochure says you are entitled too is not available may not be a hassle or is no big deal, but with the amount of money I will be spending, I won't want to feel like being nickel and dimed on those things that I feel I have already paid for. The DDP is a good choice for my family, how it is presented right now, if things are done consistently. Unfortuanately, they can change it when they wish. The frustrating part would be to pay for it, arrive and 2 days into my trip WDW changes things and makes it not a good choice for my family, but by then, I'm already out my money and they're not. Of course, that is the worse case scenario...it may not happen to me, but it could happen to others...

 

[NMW]

I think "non-transferrable" means "non-transferrable." Meaning you cannot use it for anyone other than whom it was purchased for.

Park tickets are "non-transferrable". Using your reasoning : If you bought a park hopper ticket for 10 days does it mean if you decide you want to treat "cousin Fred" to a day than after you go thru the entrance you hand your ticket to "cousin Fred " than he enters and than both of you can enjoy a day at the park?--Of course you gave up one of your days--but it was your ticketand if you want to you should be able to treat "cousin Fred" Right?

I understand you would like to use your credits the way you want.

Many guests also felt that way about the old park hopper passes.
They too were nontransferable.

But since the guest paid for them and had extra days some thought they could just give it to a friend or better yet sell them on ebay. After all it was their ticket and they could do with it what they wanted to. They did pay for it right?

What happened?
Disney installed the Bioscans so the tickets cannot be shared.
That is how Disney had to put a stop to tickets so they would not be shared.
Now guests are complaining the scans don't always work right and they slow everyone down getting into the parks.

The deliberate misuse of the tickets caused a change in entering the parks.

Now Disney is tightening the loop holes of the DDP because many guests have been deliberately misusing the DDP.
Just my 2 cents

All excellent points. To me, non-transferrable means just that-I can not "transfer" the plan to another person NOT on the plan! I can't for the life of me figure out why peopel think this is vauge. I bought the plan, I am the one that uses it, period. Why on earth would I think I could pay oop for my kids meals and then use those credits to treat my in-laws, or the Smith's? Or even share meals and treat the Smith's?

Your ticket analogy is a good one. Tickets are non-tranferrable. Meaning I can't buy an AP and give it to Mrs. Smith to use for a few days. Why would she be able to use my non-transferrable dining plan. Do the people who argue that they paid $37.99 for the plan and can use it as they see fit (ie. treat people) argue the same with their non-transferrable tickets??

I just wish Disney would seperate the credits and make it so that EVERY card had to be swiped to redeem credits. What would it add, a minute to swip 5 cards instead of one? Adults carry their childrens' KTTW or AP's to get into the parks anyway. I think it would solve so much of this deliberate misuse of the dining plan. I think it should have been that way from the beginning. I think everyone is now going to pay (like with sharing meals) for others taking advantage of loopholes and misusing the plan.

 

[Lewisc]

Most of the brochure is a listing of what restaurants participate and a description as to which restaurants charge 2 credits and what's included in a TS and CS meal.

The first paragraphs of the brochure says the meals are for your family and talks about how your family uses the meals. Similar language is used to describe how the tickets are used. There isn't any reference to using credits to "treat" others and many references to your party. None of the examples show guests using more credits than they have family members.

Disney may continue to allow guests to use their credits to buy meals for others but if that's a "deal breaker" then don't buy the plan.

I'll agree that Disney might consider adding that question to page 5.

I don't understand your point about an exculpatory clause. An exculpatory clause is typically considered a clause which releases someone from liability for his or her own negligence as long as he or she acts in good faith. I don't see the connection to an issue concerning the interpretation of vague language, nor do I see anything in the dining plan brochure that I would consider an exculpatory clause. I'm sorry if I am misunderstanding this, but I really don't understand this point.

The brochure also clearly says a lot more than "the members of your part can have 1TS, 1CS and 1 snack for each night of the reservation, and can combine TS credits to enjoy signature meals. That's it. " It goes on for 5 pages. Most of those 5 pages tell me how flexible the plan is and how many different options I have. If Disney wanted to create a dining plan providing 1 TS, 1CS and 1 snack per person for use each day, they certainly could do so. But that's not what they created. They could, for example, assign credits to each person rather than to the group collectively, but they did not do that. They could change the plan tomorrow, but I would expect them to tell me about that change before I handed over my money.

 

[frndofpooh]

The language in the brochure does give them the right to change the plan at will after you hand over the money. It really isn't any different than if they change the park hours, closings, do way with or add EMH or change what places are 1 or 2 TS credits. We may not like it but they do have the ability to do that. That little clause gives them the ability. Now if they were to make any substantial changes I would expect that you could make a case to cancel your reservation without a penalty but I don't think you can force them to provide the services as it was stated when you purchased the dinning plan. The best you could hope for is to cancel without penalty and then I think it would have to be a substantial change.

I don't agree that they can make whatever changes they want after I pay and the agreement is in place, but I accept your point of view. Nevertheless, your post recognizes that there are some changes (which you call "substantial" changes) that they could not make after I pay and the agreement is in place. But what is a "substantatial" change? I think everyone would agree that in the middle of my vacation they could not change the plan to provide only 1 snack and nothing else for the entire length of my stay. I think most would agree that if they removed the snacks entirely that also would be a "substantial" change. What about locking us into using only 1 TS, 1CS and one snack credit each day or losing them? Is that "substantial"? What about allowing 2 adults to share one meal for 1 credit on one day, but changing it to require 2 credits for the same thing on the next day? Now we're probably into areas where people will disagree about what is substantial. I don't disagree that canceling is probably the best you're going to be able to do if you don't like a change that occurs, but that doesn't make Disney's guests any happier about the situation.

That's the whole problem. Disney has created a problem by not spelling out the rules clearly, and they have compounded the problem by enforcing the rules in a way that leads people to believe that something is allowed. CMs have encouraged people to share meals in order to save credits, and this creates an expectation that it is permitted. If I'm trying to figure out what the rules of the plan are, I have only a few sources of information. One is the printed brochure. Another is what a CM may tell me on the phone. Another is what a CM may tell me in writing in response to an email. Another is what a CM in a restaurant may tell me while I am there. Other than that, I can't read the minds of the Disney employees who developed the plan to try to figure out if I should or should not believe what their employees are telling me. No matter how big a company is, at some point the public should be able to rely on what the company's employees tell them.

I think that the people who are intentionally trying to get something that they know they shouldn't get are a very small minority. Most of us simply want to know what we are supposed to get, and then actually get no more or less than we genuinely believe that are entitled to get. If a CM tells someone that 2 adults can share a meal for 1 credit and then they get to the restaurant and it's not permitted, the natural reaction is disappointment and confusion. Disappointing and confusing your customers is just not smart.

 

[frndofpooh]

Most of the brochure is a listing of what restaurants participate and a description as to which restaurants charge 2 credits and what's included in a TS and CS meal.

The first paragraphs of the brochure says the meals are for your family and talks about how your family uses the meals. Similar language is used to describe how the tickets are used. There isn't any reference to using credits to "treat" others and many references to your party. None of the examples show guests using more credits than they have family members.

Disney may continue to allow guests to use their credits to buy meals for others but if that's a "deal breaker" then don't buy the plan.

I'll agree that Disney might consider adding that question to page 5.

I never suggested that guests are allowed to treat others. My only example was 2 adults on the plan sharing one meal and using 1 credit to do it. Your post correctly points out that the credits are given to the family to be used by the family members. They are not given to each individual person. If my wife and I aren't particularly hungry and would like to share a meal at a TS restaurant, I see nothing in the brochure or anywhere else suggesting that we need to use 2 credits to do it. In fact, the new FAQ stating that "meal entitlements can not be shared between adults and children" can be read to confirm that "meal entitlements" CAN be shared between two adults.

 

[Pedler]

I don't agree that they can make whatever changes they want after I pay and the agreement is in place, but I accept your point of view. Nevertheless, your post recognizes that there are some changes (which you call "substantial" changes) that they could not make after I pay and the agreement is in place.

Its not that they can't make the changes its just that if they were to make a substantial change, say eliminate CS credits before you arrive (Not that I think they would be foolish enough to make such a change on short notice) , then you could probably cancel your reservation or change it without penalty. What you couldn't do is force them to give you the CS credits. Or another example would be if a place stopped taking the dinning plan. Say Le Cellier decided to get off the plan completely. You couldn't go there in 3 months and force them to take the plan. You could possibly make an argument to Disney that removing Le Cellier was a big change and you want to cancel your reservation without a penalty.

I know it is hard to except but for whatever reason the travel industry is incredibly lopsided in favor of the providers. An example is the cruise industry. If you take a 3 day cruise essentially you are paying for 3 days on the boat. They could change the itinerary, even for non weather reasons, and you can't cancel without a penalty. We have had this happen twice, once for weather and once just because they decided to change the itinerary of a 7 days cruise we booked way in advance. It wasn't like we could force the ship to change ports. We couldn't even cancel without penalty though I do think if we put up enough of a hassle they would have given in.

 

[PottersMom]

Ok when did everything get all screwy. I went in March and Disney made no distinction between childs and adult credits- they were just credits. And how do they prove who is dinning with you and on your plan anyway- bioscan everyone at teh table/ Either way, i still think its a good plan and I'm sorry punkin! I had no idea they changed everything around!. I would double check and ADRs anyone has and make sure the restaurants are still the same too.

 

[PottersMom]

p.s i don't think treating gramma to dinner when she joins the fam for a day in Epcot is "cheating" and if disney doesn't make a distinction about child and adult credits i also don't think its "cheating" to pay OOP for 2 kids at Cali. Grill and use 4 credits for M&D. AS i see it- or saw it on the "old" plan- its part of an all inclusive package- food tickets and hotel. Each family uses it to feed their family- simple as that, also the DP is designed so that you still need to purchase food out of pocket- so who cares what meals and for whom? People are a little too upity about this. Disney has set new rules- they do it all the time. MYW was a big change too.

 

[cgbsilver@hotmail.co]

So there is no rule at this moment that prohibits sharing or paying oop, for children.

I liked the dining plan before and I would pay for it. If it is free is great deal. However, before I could feed my family, and only my family ( just in case), without paying much extra anywhere else, as we would share meals and eat three times a day instead of two. However if they plan to deduct 4 credits no matter how much food we order, it is really less expensive for us to pay oop.,and get what we want, instead $98.00 a day for myself, DW and DDs 3 and 7.

Dear Christian,

Thank you for your recent email.

As mentioned previously, it will be up to each individual restaurant management. You will have to
ask the server at a particular restaurant you eat in and they may have to question the policy with
the manager on duty. There is no one set policy.

If you have questions or need further assistance, feel free to contact us.

Please include your full name, E-Mail address, and reservation number if applicable on all
correspondence.

Thank you!

Sincerely,

xxxxxx xxxxxx

WDW Online Communications

PLEASE NOTE: All information is subject to change without notice and should be confirmed just prior
to your visit.



Original Message Follows:
-------------------------

Message:
Thanks for answering. I wnat to know however, for sure, if there are any
specific policies implemented lately that forbid meal sharing at restaurants
other than buffets or dinner shows or all you care to eat family style
restaurants. Or if it is no longer permited to pay out of pocket for part
of the meal and use table credits for the other part. Asking for two
different checks.

Thanks

Christian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walt Disney World Guest Mail" <guest.mail@wdw.disneyonline.com>
To: "christian garcia" <cgbsilver@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Request for General Information about Walt Disney World Resort
(KMM21604455V46110L0KM)


Dear Christian,

Thank you for contacting the Walt Disney World Resort.

Sharing a meal is up to the individual restaurant's management. You would
have to inquire wherever
you eat. Sharing is not allowed at buffets or dinner shows or all you care
to eat family style
restaurants. In addition, a child's meal option can not be used by an adult.

If you have questions or need further assistance, feel free to contact us.

Please include your full name, E-Mail address, and reservation number if
applicable on all
correspondence.

Thank you!

Sincerely,

XXXXX XXXXX

WDW Online Communications

PLEASE NOTE: All information is subject to change without notice and should
be confirmed just prior
to your visit.



Original Message Follows:
-------------------------

Message:
All in
our family are devoted to Disney Vacations we go each year sometimes twice
ayear. I am writting to
get the official policy on sharing meals on the dinning plan. Last year we
did the dinning plan and
really enjoyed it, we have two daughters who do not eat much, so we use to
order one meal for both
and that was more food than they could handle also sometimes we went to the
restaurants and pay out
of pucket for a small meal for them and use the Dinning plan to pay for
ours. This was all done
without any problems or weird looks from any cast members. However I have
been hearing people
having difficulty doing it this year. We are trying to avoid any awkward
moments as we enjoy our
Disney magical trip this september. So I would really appreciate if you
could inform me on the
official policy or if there has been any recent change to the previous
policy.

Thanks in advance

Christian A. Garcia

 

[rantnnravin]

There is no one set policy

huh?

 

[bicker]

NOT REALLY. ...

I don't see the distinction that you're making here. That's pretty much what I said. The issue is that the credits are used pretty-much for the people they were provided for. That's the point I was making.

 

[bicker]

I don't understand your point about an exculpatory clause. An exculpatory clause is typically considered a clause which releases someone from liability for his or her own negligence as long as he or she acts in good faith.

Exculpatory clauses indeed do release someone from liability when they're acting in good faith, but not necessarily just due to negligence. Some would say that there is no such thing as negligence in good faith. Regardless, "Subject to change without notice" is such a clause. It releases the seller from liability with respect to details in the original description, and therefore the seller is only obligated to provide the core service, within the realm of reasonableness.

Most of those 5 pages tell me how flexible the plan is and how many different options I have.

No where does it say you can use the Dining Plan for anyone who isn't in your party. The reality is that the five pages are rather redundant, giving individuals more opportunities to read into the brochure more than it ever included. However, that doesn't negate the fact that those are still fabrications by the buyer, and therefore not valid.