Wow- did you see this AKV ebay listing?

[sjdisneywedding]

I think enough other people have posted in this thread about how irritated they'd have been to rent from this guy only to find out the location was not Kidani but the lodge to indicate you're probably in the minority on that point. People here are picky about the VIEW that they get- I can't imagine that they wouldn't care about building location!

again he NEVER mentioned Kidani, why do you keep referring to that. It was never mentioned at all. He mentioned a new DVC building by MISTAKE-an honest one too at that, most people who were not closely following AKV construction would probably make the same mistake at first. A new dvc-probabilty that there is a new DVC building

The people on these boards are not the ones purchasing a dvc stay through ebay. Generally those people are the ones who care first and foremost about the listing being for DVC, not that its in a new building or in the old lodge. Its because its DVC first, for a given date second, at the animal Kingdom third, then you finally can start thinking they care about where the room is.

Again the listing was reworded-I am not sure how much clearer the issue can be. It is not and never was FRAUD

 

[Inkmahm]

again he NEVER mentioned Kidani, why do you keep referring to that. It was never mentioned at all. He mentioned a new DVC building by MISTAKE-an honest one too at that, most people who were not closely following AKV construction would probably make the same mistake at first. A new dvc-probabilty that there is a new DVC building

The people on these boards are not the ones purchasing a dvc stay through ebay. Generally those people are the ones who care first and foremost about the listing being for DVC, not that its in a new building or in the old lodge. Its because its DVC first, for a given date second, at the animal Kingdom third, then you finally can start thinking they care about where the room is.

Again the listing was reworded-I am not sure how much clearer the issue can be. It is not and never was FRAUD

Okay, he didn't use the word "Kidani" but he said "This is not the lodge but the brand new resort built" -which would be Kidani.

As I said earlier, many people agree that it would have been fraud had they rented from him and discovered it really was the lodge afterall and not Kidani. I'm not sure how much clearer the issue could be, either.

 

[MiniGirl]

I think that you must keep in mind who he is renting to. His customers do not have the knowledge about DVC and Kidani Lodge (or whatever it is called) that you do. As of now, I have been unable to convince my dh to buy points, but I do know more than most non-owners do about DVC. I would've assumed he meant the rooms in AKL that have been redone into DVC units. I would not have been at all surprised or dissappointed when I got to my room, so I don't think the auction is really misleading or fraudulant.

Now having said that, I will say that the only way I have been able to enjoy the DVC resorts are because of owners who occassionally rent out their points, so I'd hate to see this practiced stopped. However, if this guy is truly a rent for profit owner, then he should be stopped. I haven't a clue how you could do that, and I'm sure Disney tracks how many times you stay vs. how many times you rent your points out, etc. If he's up to no good, Disney is probably already aware of it.

 

[Dean]

I think enough other people have posted in this thread about how irritated they'd have been to rent from this guy only to find out the location was not Kidani but the lodge to indicate you're probably in the minority on that point. People here are picky about the VIEW that they get- I can't imagine that they wouldn't care about building location!

One of the points I alluded to early on in this thread was that anyone who knew enough to know the difference should also know exactly what they were getting and thus would not be confused.

"My listing is right on the money JO
It is considered Animal Kingdom Villas as I that is what my reservation says and that is the time share I bought. It might be in the lodge but it is considered animal kingdom villas.
This is how Disney sells it and they are in phase 1 of 3.
So if you think it's false report me to ebay, call disney, and don't bid on my item but don't waste your time or my eye sight sending me email."

How about posting your original email to him as well.

 

[Sammie]

One of the points I alluded to early on in this thread was that anyone who knew enough to know the difference should also know exactly what they were getting and thus would not be confused.

True, and anyone that did not know enough to know the difference would not know enough to care or be upset.

 

[Dean]

True, and anyone that did not know enough to know the difference would not know enough to care or be upset.

exactly!

 

[Inkmahm]

How about posting your original email to him as well.

I already did. It's the 5th post in this thread.

 

[Inkmahm]

True, and anyone that did not know enough to know the difference would not know enough to care or be upset.

Others in this thread have already said otherwise.

 

[Inkmahm]

I think that you must keep in mind who he is renting to. His customers do not have the knowledge about DVC and Kidani Lodge (or whatever it is called) that you do. As of now, I have been unable to convince my dh to buy points, but I do know more than most non-owners do about DVC. I would've assumed he meant the rooms in AKL that have been redone into DVC units. I would not have been at all surprised or dissappointed when I got to my room, so I don't think the auction is really misleading or fraudulant.

Now having said that, I will say that the only way I have been able to enjoy the DVC resorts are because of owners who occassionally rent out their points, so I'd hate to see this practiced stopped. However, if this guy is truly a rent for profit owner, then he should be stopped. I haven't a clue how you could do that, and I'm sure Disney tracks how many times you stay vs. how many times you rent your points out, etc. If he's up to no good, Disney is probably already aware of it.

Whether you'd have been surprised or disappointed is irrelevant to the ebay ad being misleading or fraudulant.

I never addressed whether this seller is a commercial lender or not. I don't care if he is or isn't. That wasn't what the thread was about.

 

[Sammie]

Others in this thread have already said otherwise.

Their opinion, my opinion. Neither is wrong.

 

[disneynutz]

This thread is like the Energizer Bunny. It just keeps going and going and going and going.

 

[Dean]

I already did. It's the 5th post in this thread.

It was not clear to me that was the direct quote. I can see why he responded to you the way he did.

 

[Inkmahm]

Their opinion, my opinion. Neither is wrong.

Exactly. You said "anyone" and that's not true, as evidenced by posts from others here previously.

 

[Inkmahm]

It was not clear to me that was the direct quote. I can see why he responded to you the way he did.

Really? You mean you hadn't even READ my email earlier in this thread when you posted this comment?

I suspect most people would respond that way in this situation, as it seems obvious Inkmahm sent a very negative email to this person. Actually I think the ebayer showed considerable restraint given the circumstances.

 

[Muushka]

I have just visited this thread twice. My only comment is:

We have WAAAAAAY too much time on our hands!

 

[Pooh nut]

As a legal aside....
Wording in sales should be understandable to
the least knowledgeable consumer





Legal information is not legal advice.

 

[bobbiwoz]

As a legal aside....
Wording in sales should be understandable to
the least knowledgeable consumer





Legal information is not legal advice.

I like that!

 

[SandyCA]

Wow, this thread is still going

 

[Inkmahm]

I like that!

I like that, too. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Dean]

Really? You mean you hadn't even READ my email earlier in this thread when you posted this comment?

I read the comment along with all your comments along the way. What I was unclear was that this was a direct quote. I assume it was the quote in it's entirety.