Why are people still going to Disney if the Parks are Closed?

[Sandisw]

I disagree on the "refunding the difference after changes were made part." We had a free dining plan worth well over $200 a day for our family. We were given a 35% discount that amounted to about $60 a day. That's not even close to refunding the difference, and I do still think Disney is in breach of contract because I have yet to see anything in the contract that allows them to withdraw a discount once given and replace it with a lesser discount. .

I believe they can cancel anyone out at anytime.. But wasn’t the promotion to get the dining plan for free?

So if they don’t have the dining plans, they can’t give it to you anymore? Yes, it has a specific value for you, but the actual promotion was for the dining plan...

 

[jennyq87]

I disagree on the "refunding the difference after changes were made part." We had a free dining plan worth well over $200 a day for our family. We were given a 35% discount that amounted to about $60 a day. That's not even close to refunding the difference, and I do still think Disney is in breach of contract because I have yet to see anything in the contract that allows them to withdraw a discount once given and replace it with a lesser discount. .

Refunding doesn’t mean giving you money for your value perception of a benefit. It means giving you back dollars you actually paid.

 

[MomOTwins]

There won't be character meals. Restaurants will not be operating at 100% capacity. How can they give you anything equal to your own personal math?

It is not my personal math, it is their posted price of the dining plan. They could subtract the dining plan price from my package.

Edited to add: Even if our family if 5 just ate quick service, once a day, we would still come out ahead of their replacement discount. So lack of TS dining and capacity limits is irrelevant—we still have to eat sometime, somewhere.

 

[SaintsManiac]

It is not my personal math, it is their posted price of the dining plan. They could subtract the dining plan price from my package.

That's not how it works.

 

[Disneylover99]

It is not my personal math, it is their posted price of the dining plan. They could subtract the dining plan price from my package.

I’ve mentioned this before. If they gave back the money equivalency of free dining, they’d literally be paying families of four to stay at Value resorts.

 

[ShazzySteph]

How you choose to pay is on you, not WDW. They didn’t require you pay with gift cards. They will refund to whatever method of payment you chose.

I’ve got over $3500 in Disney gift cards now, will have another 800 or so very soon. I understood the risks and policies when I bought them, so I’ve got not gripe coming on that front. I’ll use them eventually.

Exactly - I had a short Disneyland trip planned for April and paid with gift cards. It is unlikely we'll be taking a Disney trip of any kind in 2020, but I like knowing that I have one "pre-paid" when the time comes.

 

[MomOTwins]

I’ve mentioned this before. If they gave back the money equivalency of free dining, they’d literally be paying families of four to stay at Value resorts.

Then give it as a credit/voucher toward dining. Sure we might not spend as much as we would if all restaurants were open, but I guarantee we will spend more than 35% off our room to feed our family. They have ended dining plans, but have not closed dining. Nothing stops them for letting is dine for free at the remaining venues that are open.

 

[nkereina]

I disagree on the "refunding the difference after changes were made part." We had a free dining plan worth well over $200 a day for our family. We were given a 35% discount that amounted to about $60 a day. That's not even close to refunding the difference, and I do still think Disney is in breach of contract because I have yet to see anything in the contract that allows them to withdraw a discount once given and replace it with a lesser discount. .

Disney is not in breach of contract because every contract is voidable when terms change. Since Disney has changed the terms on you, you are in a position where you can either accept the new terms or you can void the contract, in which case Disney would have to give you your money back. There would not be anything in your fine print about this because this is implied in contract law, applicable to any contract everywhere.

Disney has an obligation to make you financially whole. As in, whatever you have paid out, you will get back if you don't go. Even though the free dining plan is a better value for you, a court would only pay you for the actual money you are out of pocket for. Disney doesn't even have to offer the 35% discount, but it behooves them to do so from a customer service/goodwill perspective.

None of this means you shouldn't be disappointed or displeased from a customer service perspective, but from a legality perspective, Disney is acting accordingly. Because they are a service industry company, they will go above and beyond what the law requires by offering alternate options (i.e. 35% discount), and it would be up to their discretion to determine what those things would be. Then it would be up to the guest's discretion to determine if that's acceptable to them or not. And if not, that's when the legal factor comes into to play, ensuring the guest is made financially whole again.

 

[Sandisw]

Then give it as a credit/voucher toward dining. Sure we might not spend as much as we would if all restaurants were open, but I guarantee we will spend more than 35% off our room to feed our family. They have ended dining plans, but have not closed dining. Nothing stops them for letting is dine for free at the remaining venues that are open.

You really just supported Disney’s position. You were given something as a promotion that no longer exist. Instead of canceling you out and putting you back to where you started, they offered you a different discount..

Again, when a company can not deliver what was promised, you are entitled to a full refund for the entire product which was a room package. I certainly get this new promo isn’t better for you...but, Disney couod have simply canceled. They didn’t.

 

[Disneylover99]

Then give it as a credit/voucher toward dining. Sure we might not spend as much as we would if all restaurants were open, but I guarantee we will spend more than 35% off our room to feed our family. They have ended dining plans, but have not closed dining. Nothing stops them for letting is dine for free at the remaining venues that are open.

That’s virtually the same thing. Stay at an All Star resort for $150 per night and we will give you a $220 per night credit towards dining for your family of four. In fact, that’s an even better deal then free dining. People can pick and choose between dining and quick service, plus they can maximize their food, skip mandatory dining plan drinks if they want, skip desserts, etc.....

It sounds like it would be a win-win for customers. But the reality is, it’s not. Disney is pairing down their dining and limiting capacity and seating at all eateries. Why would they want to give food vouchers to everyone? It makes zero sense. They hope people will cancel and they need/want people to consider eating off property or eat lighter meals in their room, or else their restaurants will be overwhelmed with a bunch of cranky, whiny guests who have nowhere to use their vouchers.

 

[Lilsia]

It is not my personal math, it is their posted price of the dining plan. They could subtract the dining plan price from my package.

Edited to add: Even if our family if 5 just ate quick service, once a day, we would still come out ahead of their replacement discount. So lack of TS dining and capacity limits is irrelevant—we still have to eat sometime, somewhere.

Just because that is the amount that they charge people to buy the plan does not mean that that is the actual cost(value) of the free dining plan. They obviously still make money on it otherwise they would not "give" it away.

 

[chasgoose]

It is not my personal math, it is their posted price of the dining plan. They could subtract the dining plan price from my package.

Edited to add: Even if our family if 5 just ate quick service, once a day, we would still come out ahead of their replacement discount. So lack of TS dining and capacity limits is irrelevant—we still have to eat sometime, somewhere.

The thing is though that Disney is only obligated to refund you for things you actually paid for and in the case of FD, you didn't pay for a dining package so they would have been within their rights not to offer you anything. FD is a promotion only offered at limited times at limited resorts, and Disney has complete discretion over when and if they offer it. I understand that FD was an inducement to come and now that you aren't getting it, the value proposition of your trip has changed, and if Disney wouldn't allow you to cancel your trip for free that would be a problem (since in that case it would have been a bait-and-switch). Since they are allowing you to cancel, Disney isn't obligated to refund you the value of a "free" promotional item.

Also, the 35% is a reasonable offer given that's what they typically offer as a room-only discount when FD is also offered. Yes the value proposition is different for every guest based on how many people are going and what resort they are staying at, but in Disney's eyes they are comparable.

 

[Sunnywho]

Why would they want to give food vouchers to everyone? It makes zero sense. They hope people will cancel and they need/want people to consider eating off property or eat lighter meals in their room, or else their restaurants will be overwhelmed with a bunch of cranky, whiny guests who have nowhere to use their vouchers.

As an aside, I haven't seen it suggested but this could be an extra benefit for Disney to move people into dvc villas and fort Wilderness. The full kitchen is an incentive to eat in the room at times and take even some of the strain off of the Disney restaurants.

 

[MomOTwins]

Disney is not in breach of contract because every contract is voidable when terms change. Since Disney has changed the terms on you, you are in a position where you can either accept the new terms or you can void the contract, in which case Disney would have to give you your money back. There would not be anything in your fine print about this because this is implied in contract law, applicable to any contract everywhere.

Disney has an obligation to make you financially whole. As in, whatever you have paid out, you will get back if you don't go. Even though the free dining plan is a better value for you, a court would only pay you for the actual money you are out of pocket for. Disney doesn't even have to offer the 35% discount, but it behooves them to do so from a customer service/goodwill perspective.

None of this means you shouldn't be disappointed or displeased from a customer service perspective, but from a legality perspective, Disney is acting accordingly. Because they are a service industry company, they will go above and beyond what the law requires by offering alternate options (i.e. 35% discount), and it would be up to their discretion to determine what those things would be. Then it would be up to the guest's discretion to determine if that's acceptable to them or not. And if not, that's when the legal factor comes into to play, ensuring the guest is made financially whole again.

My DH and I are both lawyers, and that is not contract law. No one party can unilaterally change the terms of the contract after it has been agreed to. The reason Disney can get away with modified experiences is because the contract specifically allows for that, but it also states "Prices are for the total package and cannot be broken down into individual package component prices" with the only exception being "Prices are also subject to change due to modifications to package or package components"--so disney cannot provide less than the total package without changing the price. Which is no doubt why they gave the 35%. Whether that is an adequate price reduction is subject to debate, and something a finder of fact would have to determine in a legal proceeding.

Also it is not true that Disney only owes a refund. The legal remedy for breach of contract is "expectation damages." That means that the if Disney is in breach, the customer should get the fair market value of what they expected to get, not only what they paid. The reason for this rule is pretty clear: it would allow someone to get out of a bad bargain: e.g., I offer to sell you a priceless Van Gogh painting for $10; you accept and pay $10; I realize that was a mistake and refuse to sell it to you--your damages are not $10: they are the value of the painting you didn't get. In my case, I paid for a room, tickets, and dining. A refund would only refund the room and ticket cost, and not give me the full value of my package.

You really just supported Disney’s position. You were given something as a promotion that no longer exist. Instead of canceling you out and putting you back to where you started, they offered you a different discount..

Again, when a company can not deliver what was promised, you are entitled to a full refund for the entire product which was a room package. I certainly get this new promo isn’t better for you...but, Disney couod have simply canceled. They didn’t.

Actually, they absolutely could deliver on the promise. The restaurants are open. I can eat at them. They could give me free dining at the restaurants that are open. Nothing is stopping them from giving me dining credits like they would for the dining plan but for their own choices. It is not as though they dining plan can't exist--they could apply dining credits at the push of a button, but won't.

That’s virtually the same thing. Stay at an All Star resort for $150 per night and we will give you a $220 per night credit towards dining for your family of four. In fact, that’s an even better deal then free dining. People can pick and choose between dining and quick service, plus they can maximize their food, skip mandatory dining plan drinks if they want, skip desserts, etc.....

It sounds like it would be a win-win for customers. But the reality is, it’s not. Disney is pairing down their dining and limiting capacity and seating at all eateries. Why would they want to give food vouchers to everyone? It makes zero sense. They hope people will cancel and they need/want people to consider eating off property or eat lighter meals in their room, or else their restaurants will be overwhelmed with a bunch of cranky, whiny guests who have nowhere to use their vouchers.

I think I should have been clearer I meant dining credits, not room credits. They could absolutely provide those, just as they have done every other trip I've been on where I had the dining plan. We won't have a rental car, so eating off property or making a grocery run is not practical. As long as they have quick service restaurants open, food can be grab and go and seating capacity limits are meaningless. We can take our free meal and eat it on a bench.

 

[Sandisw]

My DH and I are both lawyers, and that is not contract law. No one party can unilaterally change the terms of the contract after it has been agreed to. The reason Disney can get away with modified experiences is because the contract specifically allows for that, but it also states "Prices are for the total package and cannot be broken down into individual package component prices" with the only exception being "Prices are also subject to change due to modifications to package or package components"--so disney cannot provide less than the total package without changing the price. Which is no doubt why they gave the 35%. Whether that is an adequate price reduction is subject to debate, and something a finder of fact would have to determine in a legal proceeding.

Also it is not true that Disney only owes a refund. The legal remedy for breach of contract is "expectation damages." That means that the if Disney is in breach, the customer should get the fair market value of what they expected to get, not only what they paid. The reason for this rule is pretty clear: it would allow someone to get out of a bad bargain: e.g., I offer to sell you a priceless Van Gogh painting for $10; you accept and pay $10; I realize that was a mistake and refuse to sell it to you--your damages are not $10: they are the value of the painting you didn't get. In my case, I paid for a room, tickets, and dining. A refund would only refund the room and ticket cost, and not give me the full value of my package.


Actually, they absolutely could deliver on the promise. The restaurants are open. I can eat at them. They could give me free dining at the restaurants that are open. Nothing is stopping them from giving me dining credits like they would for the dining plan but for their own choices. It is not as though they dining plan can't exist--they could apply dining credits at the push of a button, but won't.


I think I should have been clearer I meant dining credits, not room credits. They could absolutely provide those, just as they have done every other trip I've been on where I had the dining plan. We won't have a rental car, so eating off property or making a grocery run is not practical. As long as they have quick service restaurants open, food can be grab and go and seating capacity limits are meaningless. We can take our free meal and eat it on a bench.

They could have kept the dining plans or a version of it...that is absolutely true..no one disagrees with that.

But Disney made a decision to no longer offer it before your trip, and whether you agree with that business decision or not, it means it’s not available any more and they offered you an alternative.

I get it is not the best deal for you any longer and being frustrated that a promotion is gone....but, i simply do not agree with the argument that because Disney decided to eliminate something they offered, that any guest is now entitled to anything more than their money back.

 

[oceanmarina]

Newsflash: Disney World isn't the only theme park in Orlando. People staying at a DVC can easily drive to Universal, Sea World & Legoland, and their respective waterparks.

How far of a drive is universal from WDW? We have never ventured far out of the Disney bubble (2 trips to sea world years ago, have never been to universal)

 

[MomOTwins]

They could have kept the dining plans or a version of it...that is absolutely true..no one disagrees with that.

But Disney made a decision to no longer offer it before your trip, and whether you agree with that business decision or not, it means it’s not available any more and they offered you an alternative.

I get it is not the best deal for you any longer and being frustrated that a promotion is gone....but, i simply do not agree with the argument that because Disney decided to eliminate something they offered, that any guest is now entitled to anything more than their money back.

I can actually agree with you that it's their business decision to make. It can often be the case that it is an appropriate business decision to breach a contract. But I took issue with the suggestion that under contract law, a refund is all that is required, when that is not true under the language of the contract, and the remedies available under contract law. As a legal nerd, I can't resist actually looking at what the contract requires. Disney can cut fireworks, close rides, or require temperature screenings, but what they can't do is change a package unilaterally by taking away the included cost of dining onsite without offering adequate compensation, any more than I can't unilaterally add days to my package reservation without paying more.

I just tucked my sons in to bed though, one one of them told me that every night, before he goes to sleep he imagines he is at Disney World with me so he won't be scared of the dark. So I am sucking it up and keeping my reservation.

 

[Disneylover99]

Actually, they absolutely could deliver on the promise. The restaurants are open. I can eat at them. They could give me free dining at the restaurants that are open. Nothing is stopping them from giving me dining credits like they would for the dining plan but for their own choices. It is not as though they dining plan can't exist--they could apply dining credits at the push of a button, but won't.

Think about all the people who booked the free dining bounceback last year for this year, all the people that booked the general public fd offer in January and all the people they offered the recovery free dining to. That’s a lot of people with free dining. And yet, you speak as if you’re the only one affected by this. I just don’t believe it’s feasible for them to honour fd or offer dining credits at this point, given some restaurants will be closed and the ones that are opened will be operating at limited capacity. It only makes sense to get rid of the plan, at least for the time being.

I think I should have been clearer I meant dining credits, not room credits. They could absolutely provide those, just as they have done every other trip I've been on where I had the dining plan.

I understood that you meant dining credits and not room credits. But the fact remains, if you’re a family of four at a value you’re going to make out like a bandit. Disney needs people to cancel now, especially since it looks like the values won’t be opening right away. Offering that kind of dining incentive will only encourage people to hang onto their trips. Again, it just doesn’t make sense.

We won't have a rental car, so eating off property or making a grocery run is not practical. As long as they have quick service restaurants open, food can be grab and go and seating capacity limits are meaningless. We can take our free meal and eat it on a bench.

There will always be people who continue to stay on property to eat for convenience. But I just don’t think it’s something Disney wants to encourage at the moment. Offering free food is not a smart solution at this stage in the game.

 

[jennyq87]

I’m no attorney.. this legal technicality business is certainly out of my realm of expertise. But I’m going to guess it’s not out of the realm of Disney’s attorneys’ expertise.. and they seem okay with it

 

[nkereina]

My DH and I are both lawyers, and that is not contract law. No one party can unilaterally change the terms of the contract after it has been agreed to.

Although I didn't pass a bar, I work as a law clerk in sourcing and deal with contracts all day long. People change the terms of contracts after its agreed to all of the time. If the injured party does not accept the new terms, the responsible party would be require to pay damages because they changed the terms, and you are out money as a result of something you did not agree to. Which is exactly what is occurring since Disney is offering full refunds.

The legal remedy for breach of contract is "expectation damages."

The legal remedy for breach of contract is "expectation damages." That means that the if Disney is in breach, the customer should get the fair market value of what they expected to get, not only what they paid.

Yes, I agree expectation damages is one form of damages that can be awarded for a breach. But, the goal is still to be made whole, so you would be entitled to be put in the same position you would be in if that change hadn't occurred. The contract you had in place with Disney is for free dining while you stay at their resort. You have not stayed at their resort yet and you are not required to. You still have a way to mitigate your damages by cancelling the trip and receiving a full refund. If Disney were to pay you the value of the free dining for a trip you may or may not take, it would put you in a better position than you were in before they changed the terms - you'd have more money in your pocket than you started with and would not be required to take the trip. So, I respectfully disagree that you'd be entitled to anything more than the money you've paid in this scenario.