Question for the legal eagles: If DVC went Non-smoking..

[what]

***"Blockbuster settled and gave out coupons. Big deal, it was a win win situation for them."***

Actually, the lawfirm handling the suit recieved something like 30 milliion in fees. Hardly a win for blockbuster.

****" The whole argument that 2nd hand smoke is not harmful is ludicrous."***

Who said it was harmless. I said there is still much debate over the short & long term affects.

***" Don't get me wrong if you want to smoke go ahead. As long as they make it so that I don't pay for the same room I'm all for it."***

Read the thread I refered to in my OT. That's all we want Disney to do. Guarantee us that when we request non-smoking we get non smoking and when a smoker asks for a smoking room he gets one.

***"You don't have right to smoke."***

What country do you live in. I have every right to smoke in designated areas.

Blockbuster settled they did not lose. It is a win win. Sorry you can't see it.

By the way you don't have a right to smoke in this country. Next time you are in California ask for the smoking section. You don't even need to be in California. Check out a local California Pizza Kitchen. Light up, see what happens. By the way I believe the government established the law not the restaurants so you really don't have a "right to smoke". Show me where it says you do in the constitution.

I read your original thread and I agree you should have designated rooms. I don't agree that you have a "right" to them and that it is illegal for Disney to decide whether you may smoke on their property. Two different arguments.

 

[SoCalKDG]

You state your not a smoker. Why the huge interest?

Where in our DVC contracts does it say that we get a smoking room, by the way? Does it list anything on HC rooms?

What would keep DVC from having only 20 smoking rooms? 5 smoking rooms?

Which rooms are smoking(all on same floor, same area, etc.)

I've felt that they should have one complete building at SSR and one at OKW that are smoking. I know a number of VWL, BCV, and BWV smokers would be upset, but I know that Port Orleans has designated buildings as smoking/non smoking.

 

[DancingBear]

There is a concept in contract law that liquidated damages amounts in contracts should bear some relation to the harm caused to the other contracting party and not be punitive in nature. The Blockbuster case alleged that the late fees they charged were punitive and out of proportion to any loss of revenue suffered by Blockbuster for the late return.

BTW, the attorneys' fees were about $9.3 million, about 2% of the value of the certificates awarded to the claimants.

Without seeing the documents, I can't easily formulate a claim for Plus4206. Does Disney reserve the right to regulate all behavior in the rooms? Is there anything that could be construed as a promise to have smoking rooms available?

In any event, it seems unlikely that there is any claim that would lead to any remedy beyond getting your money back on the unit. I suppose there is some argument for specific performance given that this is real estate, but it all seems like a stretch.

 

[what]

There is a concept in contract law that liquidated damages amounts in contracts should bear some relation to the harm caused to the other contracting party and not be punitive in nature. The Blockbuster case alleged that the late fees they charged were punitive and out of proportion to any loss of revenue suffered by Blockbuster for the late return.

BTW, the attorneys' fees were about $9.3 million, about 2% of the value of the certificates awarded to the claimants.

Without seeing the documents, I can't easily formulate a claim for Plus4206. Does Disney reserve the right to regulate all behavior in the rooms? Is there anything that could be construed as a promise to have smoking rooms available?

In any event, it seems unlikely that there is any claim that would lead to any remedy beyond getting your money back on the unit. I suppose there is some argument for specific performance given that this is real estate, but it all seems like a stretch.

Blockbuster didn't even change that policy after they settled. Until recently because of Netflix.

Is there anything that could be construed as a promise to have smoking rooms available?

That is the only good argument. As far as behavior in the rooms, like I said try throwing a party at 2 am.
It is Disney property. It is a lease at best. Not even sure that DVC members have that more of a lease of time.
The original post says the argument is not the same as a bar. I would bet the owners of the bar would feel differently. They actually own property and by law they can't even smoke in it. So appently the poster does not live in this country since she decided to be smart and say what country do I live in.

 

[raidermatt]

If I have time I'll look through my contract tonight, but I am pretty sure smoking is not mentioned one way or the other.

As a general rule, though, there is very little that is "protected" under the DVC contract. The things that are protected are very clearly spelled out.

I am reasonably sure that management retains the right to make policy decisions like the number of rooms allocated for smoking, housekeeping, the type of dinnerware provided, etc, etc, etc.

A smoker may not be entitled to anything if DVC were to go smokeless, but it sure seems to me that he's losing something he thought he owned- the right to smoke in his "home away from home".

I don't doubt this at all. Some would lose something they thought they owned. But that doesn't mean they lost something they legally owned.

 

[SnackyStacky]

If I have time I'll look through my contract tonight, but I am pretty sure smoking is not mentioned one way or the other.

As a general rule, though, there is very little that is "protected" under the DVC contract. The things that are protected are very clearly spelled out.

I am reasonably sure that management retains the right to make policy decisions like the number of rooms allocated for smoking, housekeeping, the type of dinnerware provided, etc, etc, etc.


I don't doubt this at all. Some would lose something they thought they owned. But that doesn't mean they lost something they legally owned.

I'm not looking specifically for wording about whether or not you can smoke, but rather if Disney retains the right to change policy on the rooms, be it smoking, or how far in advance you can book - things like that.

 

[raidermatt]

I getcha... I doubt the word smoking will even appear. I see if I can find anything on management's ability to alter policies.

 

[what]

seems to me you would have to establish that it is a policy.

 

[SnackyStacky]

seems to me you would have to establish that it is a policy.

I would think that if it is NOT a written policy, it would be even more difficult to bring a case up. If there's no policy about it at ALL, then there's nothing to say that they can't decide to make DVC properties smoke free environments.

 

[mrsR123]

Slightly OT, but related:

I read recently that management could not alter the configuration of OKW studios from their two queen arrangement; makes me wonder what else IS in there.

 

[Plus4206]

Have you looked at this board lately ? Page one's been the same for a week. Gotta have something to talk about.

***" As far as behavior in the rooms, like I said try throwing a party at 2 am." ***

Read the DVC boards. Apparently noisy parties at 2 am aren't that uncommon. And Disney does nothing to quiet them down.

*** " So appently the poster does not live in this country since she decided to be smart and say what country do I live in. " ***

Huh ?? I live in this country. And so does my wife.

***" The original post says the argument is not the same as a bar. I would bet the owners of the bar would feel differently. They actually own property and by law they can't even smoke in it."***

But all bar owners are playing on an even playing field. They did nothing to offend their customers, the gov did. You totally missed the point. A public bar being forced to go smokeless is not the same as an individual who has made a considerable investment to enjoy his vacation the way he wants too suddenly losing the right to smoke in a unit he considers his "home" for the week.

*** "Blockbuster settled they did not lose. It is a win win. Sorry you can't see it." ***

I'm sorry. If I'm a company that just had to pay a legal firm 9.2 million dollars (thanx DB for the correct figure) to SETTLE a case.... I don't see where I won anything.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Slightly OT, but related:

I read recently that management could not alter the configuration of OKW studios from their two queen arrangement; makes me wonder what else IS in there.

You mean they couldn't put twin beds in there?

Plus4206 said there was a clause that they couldn't do that unless it was of equal value or more. So if they were to put one king bed in there, they couldn't house more than 2 guests. I wonder if maybe that's the reason?

Just my line of thinking on that.

 

[SnackyStacky]

Have you looked at this board lately ? Page one's been the same for a week. Gotta have something to talk about.

***" As far as behavior in the rooms, like I said try throwing a party at 2 am." ***

Read the DVC boards. Apparently noisy parties at 2 am aren't that uncommon. And Disney does nothing to quiet them down.

*** " So appently the poster does not live in this country since she decided to be smart and say what country do I live in. " ***

Huh ?? I live in this country. And so does my wife.

***" The original post says the argument is not the same as a bar. I would bet the owners of the bar would feel differently. They actually own property and by law they can't even smoke in it."***

But all bar owners are playing on an even playing field. They did nothing to offend their customers, the gov did. You totally missed the point. A public bar being forced to go smokeless is not the same as an individual who has made a considerable investment to enjoy his vacation the way he wants too suddenly losing the right to smoke in a unit he considers his "home" for the week.

*** "Blockbuster settled they did not lose. It is a win win. Sorry you can't see it." ***

I'm sorry. If I'm a company that just had to pay a legal firm 9.2 million dollars (thanx DB for the correct figure) to SETTLE a case.... I don't see where I won anything.

A bar being forced to go smokeless DOES in fact hurt the owner of the bar, and there have been appeals in New York BY bar owners.

As a result, New York did put a clause on their law that privately owned bars, where the owner was present during operating hours, and cigar bars that housed a humador could permit smoking.

But that's a completely different scenario because those bar owners' business was hurt by the law, so they had monetary damages. They had a case to go on.

DVC smokers would not, because they quite simply can opt out of their contract by selling their interest!

 

[what]

Have you looked at this board lately ? Page one's been the same for a week. Gotta have something to talk about.

***" As far as behavior in the rooms, like I said try throwing a party at 2 am." ***

Read the DVC boards. Apparently noisy parties at 2 am aren't that uncommon. And Disney does nothing to quiet them down.

*** " So appently the poster does not live in this country since she decided to be smart and say what country do I live in. " ***

Huh ?? I live in this country. And so does my wife.

***" The original post says the argument is not the same as a bar. I would bet the owners of the bar would feel differently. They actually own property and by law they can't even smoke in it."***

But all bar owners are playing on an even playing field. They did nothing to offend their customers, the gov did. You totally missed the point. A public bar being forced to go smokeless is not the same as an individual who has made a considerable investment to enjoy his vacation the way he wants too suddenly losing the right to smoke in a unit he considers his "home" for the week.

*** "Blockbuster settled they did not lose. It is a win win. Sorry you can't see it." ***

I'm sorry. If I'm a company that just had to pay a legal firm 9.2 million dollars (thanx DB for the correct figure) to SETTLE a case.... I don't see where I won anything.

The point is you decided to be a smart alleck and ask what country I live in. I was making the point that smoking is not a right and can be taken away.

You said considered your home. Well unfortunately that is your interpretation and just a marketing ploy. You do not own it. You don't own any property. I don't know how it can be stressed anymore than that. I simply don't believe Disney does not do anything if parties are ruining other peoples time. But I don't stay there so I won't argue that.

Bottom line, you don't own property. Smoking is not a right. If Disney determines that they don't want it on THEIR property they can and will do it.

As far as Blockbuster is concerned there are so many variables in what it actually cost them. It is to complicated to go over how the money gets tracked and in the end how that silly lawsuit actually did not cost them. You believe what you want. By the way like I said before they didn't change the policy that they were getting sued for. So you should draw the conclusion that if it hurt them they would have immediately stopped that practice. Which is not how it went down.
Good luck in your fight if it ever comes about. At least it will be a learning experience.

 

[mrsR123]

You mean they couldn't put twin beds in there?

Plus4206 said there was a clause that they couldn't do that unless it was of equal value or more. So if they were to put one king bed in there, they couldn't house more than 2 guests. I wonder if maybe that's the reason?

Just my line of thinking on that.

The discussion made reference to an inability to go to a bed/pullout arrangement which wouldn't affect capacity.

 

[jarestel]

Over the last 25 years we've seen smoking in the workplace banned, smoking outlawed in many public buildings, restaurants have gone smoke free, and some companies are even firing employees who smoke, even if it's not on company time or property. I think the handwriting is on the wall, and smoke free environments outside one's own private home ( private is the operative word here ) are probably inevitable at some point. The courts don't tend to side with smokers when it comes to smoking in areas where it could affect others, and I really wouldn't anticipate that they would make an exception for DVC members.

Another point to consider is that if the state of Florida passes a law restricting smoking in most places ( not all that unlikely in this day and age ), DVC would have to comply anyway. This is probably the best thing for DVC, since they could simply say, "Hey, we'd like you to smoke, but rules are rules".

For those old enough to remember, compare the smoking environments of the 70's to today. It's a whole different world regarding smoking and it's only going to get more restrictive as time goes on. That's just the way it is, like it or not.

 

[JCW]

***"
To my knowledge DVC doesn't put non smokers into smoking room - and vise verse. A smoking room today is a smoking room tommorrow,etc. As for 2nd hand smoke: This is a whole different debate, but I just want to throw this in here. There is still debate about the affects of 2nd hand smoke. There is no debate about 2nd hand alchohol. More innocent people have been killed by a drunk then by 2nd hand smoke. More lives have been ruined by alchohol - failed marriages, abused wives & children, lost employment - then by 2nd
It's a reasonable assumption a smoker could sell his points & make a profit. But that wasn't the reason he chose to buy DVC. He loves Disney & wants to stay on property. He loves to smoke. He found a way to do both. That has value beyond purchase price. That's what he would be losing.

Smoking vs Non smoking is only a REQUEST at DVC. There is no guarantee that you will get what you request. Therefore, DVC DOES put non-smokers in smoking rooms (and vice versa) when necessary. Just check the DVC boards. You will find all kinds of stories in regards to this. As a non-smoker, smoke doesn't bother me when the smoke is direct(meaning someone is smoking near me). What does bother me, tremendously, is the smell of stale smoke left behind in a room. There should be designated smoking/non-smoking rooms and this should be a request that is guaranteed. This way everyone is happy. If they don't have your prefered room type available at the time of reservation, this should be made known to the guest and then it is the guest's choice to take the available room or not. Then there are no surprises upon check in.

My opinion on whether DVC will go non-smoking - Probably not until the state of Florida requires them to do so. JMHO

 

[dcentity2000]

At British law you'd have no case as:

a. The reasonable man would not base a membership to Disney upon matters to do with smoking (primarily);
b. To rule for you would set poor precedence;
c. There is an implied term in all contract in reference to public health and morals.



Rich::

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

There is no guarantee that you will get what you request. Therefore, DVC DOES put non-smokers in smoking rooms (and vice versa) when necessary.

Good point.

It seems that more and more resorts (including DVC resorts) are designating only a small percentage of rooms as smoking. That means that nonsmokers are highly likely to get nonsmoking rooms, but that a fair number of smokers will also end up in nonsmoking rooms. That seems fair. A smoker can go outside to smoke; it's just a minor inconvenience. But nonsmokers should not have their vacations ruined by the awful smell of stale smoke that permeates the carpets, walls, and fabrics in smoking rooms (whether it's a health issue or not).

The challenge with confirmed reservations for smoking and non-smoking inventory is how to deal with the issue that the proportion of smokers and nonsmokers will vary from day to day, but the proportion of smoking and nonsmoking rooms is fixed. At a regular hotel, that's not such a big issue. If I can't get a guaranteed nonsmoking reservation, I pick a different hotel. But with a timehare home resort, it beomes a matter or "take it or leave it." There is no easy answer.

In the next few years it's likely that state laws will continue to limit smoking. Most smokers now realize there is no widespread "right to smoke." Smoking will be allowed in private homes, private cars, and designated outdoor and indoor smoking lounges. Period. At that point, all DVC rooms will be nonsmoking, and the issue will be solved.

 

[VioletsRBlu]

So now people think they have the right to tell you what to do in YOUR home?
Sickening. The line of rights regarding "personal habits" like drinking or smoking, is drawn at the doorway..trying to go any further makes most peoples stomachs turn.
Why are they not interested in making Everyone happy? Its just typical that there is no balance in this.
If you designate some as non smoking and some as smoking everyones happy, everyone has different habits or things that someone else would consider a nuisance, children jumping in and out of hot tubs, throwing balls is but do you see anyone seeking to make it illegal?
Things that seek to, or in some way, repress the rights of others are never a good thing. It doesnt hurt anyone to have a non smoking AND smoking choice.