ROFR Riviera Should Carry Restrictions

[zavandor]

I do believe RIV restrictions are illegal because of the reasons explained in this thread:

https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...t-to-revert-dvcs-resale-restrictions.3747861/

Long story short: all previous resorts POS had a provision that future resorts could join the BVTC only if they had substantially similar rules to existing resorts. And resale restrictions are certainly not substantially similar.
But someone who bought an original resort with resale restrictions should be willing to test it to court, otherwise Disney wins.
But I think DVC is sitting on a ticking bomb, at any point this could happen and they might be liable for damage.

I do not think a RIV resale owner could sue based on the OP thesis, because RIV contract has the restrictions and they accepted that when they bought it.

 

[Mouseforward]

I do believe RIV restrictions are illegal because of the reasons explained in this thread:

https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...t-to-revert-dvcs-resale-restrictions.3747861/

Long story short: all previous resorts POS had a provision that future resorts could join the BVTC only if they had substantially similar rules to existing resorts. And resale restrictions are certainly not substantially similar.
But someone who bought an original resort with resale restrictions should be willing to test it to court, otherwise Disney wins.
But I think DVC is sitting on a ticking bomb, at any point this could happen and they might be liable for damage.

I do not think a RIV resale owner could sue based on the OP thesis, because RIV contract has the restrictions and they accepted that when they bought it.

They grandfathered the original owners so they did not lose any rights, lacking any measurable damages, I don't think this there is any case.

 

[Tumnus]

I do believe RIV restrictions are illegal because of the reasons explained in this thread:

https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...t-to-revert-dvcs-resale-restrictions.3747861/

Long story short: all previous resorts POS had a provision that future resorts could join the BVTC only if they had substantially similar rules to existing resorts. And resale restrictions are certainly not substantially similar.
But someone who bought an original resort with resale restrictions should be willing to test it to court, otherwise Disney wins.
But I think DVC is sitting on a ticking bomb, at any point this could happen and they might be liable for damage.

I do not think a RIV resale owner could sue based on the OP thesis, because RIV contract has the restrictions and they accepted that when they bought it.

Pretty sure that we all agreed to arbitration in our terms and conditions and there's 0% chance this ever gets to courts. Nor would it because it's not illegal.

 

[jimmymc]

It just seems like market manipulation to me. They can drive down the resale price and then resale it higher because the restrictions don’t apply to them. It’s taking money from people who need to sell their contracts.

It is analogous to Apple only allowing the apps that come with the iPhone if you resell it, but if they resell it, it can have all the apps again.

ROFR is market manipulation. It's Disney making sure the gap between direct and resale doesn't get too large. There's no guarantee that contracts are going to hold their value for the owners, just like any other piece of real estate.