Membership Magic Beyond

[PalmettoPath]

It’s not sarcasm. You said I don’t understand how it works. I took you at your word, and asked for an explanation. You implied you know how it works.

That isn’t how costs work in practice (can be a settlement and generally the corp would pay if the ruling is against them). I know you were being facetious (if not sarcastic), but unless someone took on a suit with zero merit and insisted on pursuing a frivolous case, that scenario is unlikely. Certainly we would not do that. Likely would be a lot more than one Int’l member (many are not amused as the potential future ramifications on their investment), I can say that with confidence.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

That isn’t how costs work in practice (can be a settlement and generally the corp would pay if the ruling is against them). I know you were being facetious (if not sarcastic), but unless someone took on a suit with zero merit and insisted on pursuing a frivolous case, that scenario is unlikely. Certainly we would not do that. Likely would be a lot more than one Int’l member (many are not amused as the potential future ramifications on their investment), I can say that with confidence.

I could be wrong, as I am not a lawyer, but….
I don’t think the loser paying the fees is a US thing.
I know other countries work that way, but not sure about the US.
I do think it *should* be that way however.

 

[PalmettoPath]

I could be wrong, as I am not a lawyer, but….
I don’t think the loser paying the fees is a US thing.
I know other countries work that way, but not sure about the US.
I do think it *should* be that way however.

I feel like we’re getting too deep into this but I found a quick quote that sums it up for the US.

“Suing for legal fees is common in many lawsuits. Suing for legal fees doesn't guarantee that the judge will give them to you. Some states have laws that require the party that loses a lawsuit to pay the winning side's legal fees in certain cases. These are called prevailing party provisions.”

 

[Maistre Gracey]

I feel like we’re getting too deep into this but I found a quick quote that sums it up for the US.

“Suing for legal fees is common in many lawsuits. Suing for legal fees doesn't guarantee that the judge will give them to you. Some states have laws that require the party that loses a lawsuit to pay the winning side's legal fees in certain cases. These are called prevailing party provisions.”

Right, but usually you have to sue to recover the fees. It’s rare that it’s automatic.

Regardless, I agree the legal conversation has run its course.

Good luck with your quest.

 

[PalmettoPath]

Right, but usually you have to sue to recover the fees. It’s rare that it’s automatic.

Regardless, I agree the legal conversation has run its course.

Good luck with your quest.

Oh it’s not automatic usually, agreed. Even in Canada (in our jurisdiction) it’s not automatic. However, It’s common that they’re granted though, particularly in David and Goliath cases.

Always a vibrant discussion on these boards. Hopefully the quest isn’t required after all is said and done.

 

[Unclelude]

I think I'm gonna watch Strange Brew tonight! Love that movie...

Take off, eh!!

Sort of the main argument isn't it!!?!

 

[RichVIII]

I don’t have an hourly rate but I have wasted far more than $99 reading this thread. Ha ha ha

 

[Sandisw]

I don’t have an hourly rate but I have wasted far more than $99 reading this thread. Ha ha ha

Sorry about that!!! But you made me laugh!

 

[Spivey378]

So I just now opened this thread and read page one. I thought to myself “I wonder how the conversation has devolved” so I jumped to the last page. Boom! Lawsuits.

 

[davidhr]

So I just now opened this thread and read page one. I thought to myself “I wonder how the conversation has devolved” so I jumped to the last page. Boom! Lawsuits.

You skipped all the personal attacks!

To be fair, I haven’t followed this thread in a while and I’m just guessing. But there’s a decent chance I’m not wrong.

 

[pzw90]

You skipped all the personal attacks!

To be fair, I haven’t followed this thread in a while and I’m just guessing. But there’s a decent chance I’m not wrong.

You missed the part where all of Canada got mad

 

[zavandor]

Oh it’s not automatic usually, agreed. Even in Canada (in our jurisdiction) it’s not automatic. However, It’s common that they’re granted though, particularly in David and Goliath cases.

Always a vibrant discussion on these boards. Hopefully the quest isn’t required after all is said and done.

In 2020 I and a few other people questioned the legality of the new point charts. There were a lot of people that were convinced we were fools, the most common argument was that Disney has an army of lawyers, so if they did something it was certainly within their rights. And even if they weren't, the same army would crush us anyway.
Had we given up we would now have a bigger lockoff premium, all studios and 1BR would cost more points, Poly studios and CCV non-bungalows even more so.
And again, a couple of years later DVC had to change how seasons where split, to avoid inflating point charts.
And again, one single member managed to make DVC change the way they reimburse taxes when a contract is sold.
So you see, DVC is not always right.

Also, argue your points, but don't hope to convince everyone, some people will just think DVC is always right.

That said, there are a lot of things that are already different between locations. For example us in Europe can never participate in sweepstakes. Membership extras are always paid with marketing budget, as long as nothing is paid with dues, it's difficult to argue based on the contracts. I think this might be difficult to win.

 

[PalmettoPath]

In 2020 I and a few other people questioned the legality of the new point charts. There were a lot of people that were convinced we were fools, the most common argument was that Disney has an army of lawyers, so if they did something it was certainly within their rights. And even if they weren't, the same army would crush us anyway.
Had we given up we would now have a bigger lockoff premium, all studios and 1BR would cost more points, Poly studios and CCV non-bungalows even more so.
And again, a couple of years later DVC had to change how seasons where split, to avoid inflating point charts.
And again, one single member managed to make DVC change the way they reimburse taxes when a contract is sold.
So you see, DVC is not always right.

Also, argue your points, but don't hope to convince everyone, some people will just think DVC is always right.

That said, there are a lot of things that are already different between locations. For example us in Europe can never participate in sweepstakes. Membership extras are always paid with marketing budget, as long as nothing is paid with dues, it's difficult to argue based on the contracts. I think this might be difficult to win.

Great perspective. We do have some points that are unique and different from the examples you gave -- at least to argue. I am not going to comment further here, for a number of reasons. But as you noted, we will do what's right for us. Thank you for sharing!

 

[Cyberc1978]

So I just now opened this thread and read page one. I thought to myself “I wonder how the conversation has devolved” so I jumped to the last page. Boom! Lawsuits.

But lawsuits, isn’t that the American way?

 

[New Mouse]

In 2020 I and a few other people questioned the legality of the new point charts. There were a lot of people that were convinced we were fools, the most common argument was that Disney has an army of lawyers, so if they did something it was certainly within their rights. And even if they weren't, the same army would crush us anyway.
Had we given up we would now have a bigger lockoff premium, all studios and 1BR would cost more points, Poly studios and CCV non-bungalows even more so.
And again, a couple of years later DVC had to change how seasons where split, to avoid inflating point charts.
And again, one single member managed to make DVC change the way they reimburse taxes when a contract is sold.
So you see, DVC is not always right.

Also, argue your points, but don't hope to convince everyone, some people will just think DVC is always right.

That said, there are a lot of things that are already different between locations. For example us in Europe can never participate in sweepstakes. Membership extras are always paid with marketing budget, as long as nothing is paid with dues, it's difficult to argue based on the contracts. I think this might be difficult to win.

And they will still think DVC is right and just claim they decided it wasn't worth their time to try right now.

Just because it's in a contract doesn't mean it's legal.

 

[xdan0920]

Some people are extremely proud to be DVC members. And questioning DVC means questioning them. It's a difficult position to be in, for certain.

 

[Sandisw]

Some people are extremely proud to be DVC members. And questioning DVC means questioning them. It's a difficult position to be in, for certain.

I am not sure that true, at least not here on the boards. I think that we all just have different ways in which we evaluate the decisions of Disney and DVC.

 

[xdan0920]

I am not sure that true, at least not here on the boards. I think that we all just have different ways in which we evaluate the decisions of Disney and DVC.

When someone drops 40k on a 200pt contract, or god forbid, does that multiple times...They are put in a position where they have to support basically everything DVC does in order to continue to feel good about that financial commitment.

 

[Genie+]

When someone drops 40k on a 200pt contract, or god forbid, does that multiple times...They are put in a position where they have to support basically everything DVC does in order to continue to feel good about that financial commitment.

I guess just like when someone saves $2k or $3k buying a 5 figure resale they need to convince themselves the savings were worth more than the perks or restricted resort booking would ever mean to them, even potentially over several decades.

 

[xdan0920]

I guess just like when someone saves $2k or $3k buying a 5 figure resale they need to convince themselves the savings were worth more than the perks or restricted resort booking would ever mean to them, even potentially over several decades.

I think your math might be off. Either way it doesn't apply to me. I am blue card member. Have been for 25 years.