SSR people with purchase agreements

[robmary]

Hi everyone,

Reviewing our SSR purchase agreement for a new member. Hope you have read it. Some questions.

1. Purchase agreement section 18. Implies that we are giving Initial Use Year points back. That's not what the Sales Sheet said, but that is what the contract says. I asked the QA manager and he is getting back to me. Said this is the standard contract. Sorry, but if we sign it, it says we are giving points back for Initial Use year. In a court of law who would win this one? Disney that's right. For SSR it needs to read differently.

2. Purchase agreement section 19. Annual dues of $3.0820, Exclusive of Taxes of $1.0136. To me exclusive means not included. QA manager says 1.01 is part of 3.08. Well, then it should say INCLUSIVE, right? I don't want them to come back and say again you signed it and it's $4.09.

Your thoughts people. Thanks in advance. I'm sure Disney is not trying to cheat anyone, but they wrote this and I feel I need to be sharp enough about seeing through all the legal-eze.

Thanks again.

 

[disneycrazed139]

Hi,

I saw your post and have the very same questions. I don't know what to do except call and find out, but how do we get it specified in writing at this point, since it really doesn't seem clear? Trust them and pray it turns out all right, and that the contract doesn't represent what was originally represented to us?

Please let me know what you find out. I am calling now and will post about it, too.

 

[disneycrazed139]

I just got off the phone with my Guide. She is contacting quality management and going over the clauses with them. She will get back to them, and I will call them later to speak with them also. I think these standard contracts were just not altered for the specific Saratoga Springs conditions per section 18. However, for section 19, it seems quite clear that dues on this page add up to more than what they say they will be on the product understanding checklist (by about 30 cents per point more)

wow, talk about reading the fine print.

 

[robmary]

QA just called back.

First on the annual dues. Exclusive is right, but the amounts are wrong. First amount should be $3.0214 and the second for the taxes should be $0.7791 for a total of $3.8006. That is the figure on Special Financing sheet they gave. I asked a new purchase agreement be sent to us for signing (we haven't sent anything back yet).

Second on the Inital Points question. They acknowledge that it looks deceiving and will change it. They say it can only be changed with some Florida Commission permission and that will take months. I said I need something in writing from Disney to say we are keeping Initial Use Year Points and we would both sign. They say NO. QA manager said hundreds have signed this contract for SSR and I am the only person to question it. They feel they are acting in good faith. I don't think so.

Is it true from you SSR people that none of you read this and questioned it? How could this be. If you ever had to go to court over this the judge would rule on DVC's side. YOU SIGNED IT. Please tell me this isn't so from all you sharp people out there.

I am calling quide now to see if she can help. Otherwise, we may not become DVC members. We feel we must stand up on this!!!!

 

[disneycrazed139]

I wonder why they wouldn't give you something in writing. That seems a little wrong.

I trust that my Guide wasn't trying to mislead me, but I cannot understand that they couldn't provide a good faith representation of that statement. I really can't. I just talked to my Guide about this, too. She was unaware of the mistake, and she said she would definitely bring it to QA's attention. I called them and have yet to hear back.

I suppose the people in the office would have to go through all sorts of corporate channels to update the points clause and they just don't know where to start with it. I'm sure 99% or more of signers missed these. Perhaps corporate just missed it, too!!

I have faith that it is not an intentional mispresentation, but they really should provide it in writing. If they can't, I would be hesitant to sign either. It isn't my understanding that I am giving up my first year's points, and I probably wouldn't have thought it was that great a deal if I was. It states clearly we are. What to do??

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Just my opinion- I have read several posts from members signing original paperwork. While I certainly understand, and appreciate your thoroughness and caution, please remember who you are dealing with.
Disney is not trying to pull the wool over anyones eyes, or deceive anyone out of their money. DVC is not your standard timeshare rift-raff. Disney/DVC is truly a upstanding outfit.
Again, I am glad to see that folks are proceeding with caution, but I would not take the stance that DVC as trying to get away with something.

Please don't take my post the wrong way, as I see why you have concern, and I'm impressed that the new members are doing their homework!

PS- I also am not suggesting anyone sign anything they are not comfortable with.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Is there a date listed somewhere as to when you get your first alotment of points? If so, is it dated this year, or next?

 

[robmary]

Use year is December 2003. I think it is that for most, so we could have taken a vacation in 2004. I'm sure you can understand how much tht would equate too, in dollars.

I would like to believe no one is deceiving, but if they are not deceiving anyone why can't they put it in writing for all to sign.

If push came to shove, they would knock us over.

 

[disneycrazed139]

Okay... who would sign and who wouldn't. Let's say your Guide tells you that you get your first year's points, the contract explicitly states that you don't and that they are forfeited.

Would you personally really sign, without some sort of an addendum to the contract? Maybe just a form letter even that notes the mistake to represent good faith?

I love Disney and I am sure that they are an excellent outfit in every way. That is why they should ammend the contract without any question.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Originally posted by robmary
I would like to believe no one is deceiving, but if they are not deceiving anyone why can't they put it in writing for all to sign.

I can only speculate that what a previous poster on this thread said is correct. Timeshares are heavily regulated, and paperwork needs approval from several places. This would indeed take some time, especially once you bring the state bureaucracy into the mix.

 

[aero99]

I haven't gotten my purchase agreement yet (deposit was placed on Tuesday) but I have to admit this is making me nervous. My fiancee would never sign that contract as is. He is a stickler about contacts (as he should be). I really hope disney fixes this. (especially since I already added the dvc logo to my signature, can you tell I was excited?)

Melissa

 

[disneycrazed139]

I don't believe there is anything that states when you get your first allotment of points. There is nothing to conflict with the statements made that you do not get the 2003 allotment. It is spelled out that way only as far as I can see.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Originally posted by disneycrazed139
Okay... who would sign and who wouldn't. Let's say your Guide tells you that you get your first year's points, the contract explicitly states that you don't and that they are forfeited.

Would you personally really sign, without some sort of an addendum to the contract? Maybe just a form letter even that notes the mistake to represent good faith?

I love Disney and I am sure that they are an excellent outfit in every way. That is why they should ammend the contract without any question.

I must admit that some sort of statement on DVC letterhead would relieve the anxiety, but I wonder if that would void the original paperwork.

Perhaps some legal folks will read this thread and can give some expert opinion...

 

[robmary]

Come on all you SSR people call your guides and QA managers about this!!! I'm sure if they get flooded with calls about this they will do something NOW and not later.

 

[RoutemanDan]

I'm not worried about it. The correct amount for dues is listed on the product checklist,(item # 3 $3.80)also the wording about the first years points does not disturb me.Magical beginnings is always a seperate form that has to be filled out.We are clearly getting a 10 dollar credit on the points and not selling back our first years points..I really don't think Disney is going to turn around and deny all SSR purchasers their first years points.What do you think that would do to the DVC reputation if they did?

 

[disneycrazed139]

I talked to quality assurance and they tried to ASSURE me that this SSR is an exception to this and that the change would take months via an approval from the State of Florida.

I can understand that, but am still unsure why they do not want send out some sort of letter. Their basic attitude was that any other company, she could understand why there would be a concern, but that you need not be concerned because they are trustworthy. I believe that they are. However, I still would urge anyone who has a contract in hand to contact the quality assurance number that is located on the wrapper that ties the documents together and ask about it.

The legal department is fully aware of it, and I have asked someone from that department to contact me.

I think perhaps they didn't get this approved from the State, and it was a mistake on Disney's part, which they would rather smooth over than have a big "to do" over.

If you have one of the SSR contracts, CALL! If even a few more people do, they will need to do something, and I am sure there is some sort of a letter they can put out that would somehow please both sides. After all, it's Disney!!

 

[Doctor P]

Seems to me that at least part of the problem is Disney's generosity. If I recall correctly, when BCV opened you got your 2002 points and some persons did not receive their first allocation of points until well after the resort opened (one of our friends had a December use year as I recall). The "current year" points for SSR could be argued to be 2004 points, thus the December 2003 points would be bonus points beyond the "current year" under that interpretation. Not what they are intending, I don't think. But still worth mentioning.

 

[disneycrazed139]

You could look at it that way. The entire deal is a very good one in that you get your entire allotment of points to use. However, when a representation is made, you still do rely on it in making your decision in the first place--whether you think it is too good a deal or too generous or not, it is still a deal agreed upon. I don't think if Disney is too generous or if anyone is too generous, for that matter, that it exempts them from the responsibilities in communicating the agreed upon deal, do you?

I like transactions to be spelled out. The fact that Disney can't in this case, I really do think just means that they are being more generous than their original paperwork had intended. That is great. I do trust it, and I do appreciate that, I really do. By the same token though, I just think it is respectful to another party to have the letter match the word, that's all. The fact that Disney is very generous is great and I appreciate it, but it doesn't change the issue.

 

[Richyams]

I think that the regulation is the problem. They probably put in the standard language about giving up the first year's points and then somewhere down the line, someone had this great idea of raising the buy in to $89 and offering a $10 MB with no points given up.

Great idea, lets go for it....but now this paperwork is wrong, it will take months to get the right wording approved and a few more months will will be stopping this offer and the paper work will be right again.

Lets just go with this, after all, only one in five hindred will read it and care and we just won't bother doing anything. We are going to give everyone their first year of points, no harm, no foul!

Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. Think about the number of people that have signed up for this, think about that in your hypothetical court case. I think you could get a class certified pretty easily.

 

[disneycrazed139]

I talked with someone from their legal department who basically explained the difficulty in getting contracts changed and how everything has to be state approved. The clause has no bearing on SSR at all and shouldn't be there, but it's just their standard legalese for I guess what is known as Magical Beginnings. She gave me a name for the new program for SSR, which now escapes me for some reason.

Anyway, the woman I spoke with was very concerned about the whole thing, and I felt very comfortable after speaking with her. Regardless of whether they change the clause or not, I really did appreciate the phone call.