Here is RCCL's alcohol policy, the other thread went nuts

[asylum575]

Here is the policy. Look at what they boldface and read the "please note".

I'm sure most of their rules have been approved by a legal team. This reads pretty clear. I don't see sometime or maybe used at all. Closest is "May inspect containers".

 

Q: Can I bring liquor or non-alcoholic beverages (from home or from a port) onboard?

A: Guests are not allowed to bring alcoholic beverages onboard for consumption or any other use. Alcoholic beverages that are purchased in ports-of-call or from Shops On Board will be stored by the ship and delivered to your stateroom on the last day of the sailing. Alcoholic beverages seized on embarkation day will not be returned.

 

Security may inspect containers (water bottles, soda bottles, mouthwash, luggage etc.) and will dispose of containers holding alcohol. Guests who violate any alcohol policies, (over consume, provide alcohol to people under age 21, demonstrate irresponsible behavior, or attempt to conceal alcoholic items at security and or luggage check points or any other time), may be disembarked or not allowed to board, at their own expense, in accordance with our Guest Conduct Policy. Guests who are under the permitted drinking age will not have alcohol returned to them.

 

Please Note: All guests must comply with TSA guidelines for transporting liquids.

[asylum575]

OOPs,

 

Read it again, "May be disembarked". It doesn't say what would trigger it, but they MAY.

[MrPete]

Talk about triplespeak.

 

They say they will not return your beverages, they will return your beverages on the day of debarkation, \and you may be disembarked. :eek:

 

This foillows YEARS of being allowed to freely bring these things on board until the GS age.

 

I'd LOVE to see the first occurance of forced debarkation be challenged in a court of law.

 

Just sayin'.

[zekekelso]

Their "policy" is what they actually do. Not what they write down in the fine print of the contract.

 

What they actually do is take away the booze and send people back to their room. That's the policy.

[negc]

The rules give RCI the discretion to punish the violators with a penalty that CAN, if they deem it necessary, include not allowing the violator to board. However, if they have suddenly decided to impose this penalty and part of the reason for making that decision is to deter others from violating the policy, don't you think that they, not the poster in question, would have announced their action. Not much deterrance if they don't let others know what has happened. By their silence, I strongly suspect that the "alleged" event didn't happen or certainly didn't happen as it was presented.:rolleyes:

[nlcentralchmps03]

Why is there a new thread on this seemingly every single day?

 

Is it allowed?

No.

 

Can you sneak some on?

Yes, probably

 

Will they deny you boarding?

No, they will not.

[Paul65]

Talk about triplespeak.

 

They say they will not return your beverages, they will return your beverages on the day of debarkation, \and you may be disembarked. :eek:

 

This foillows YEARS of being allowed to freely bring these things on board until the GS age.

 

I'd LOVE to see the first occurance of forced debarkation be challenged in a court of law.

 

Just sayin'.

 

You do realize, don't you, that there have been many instances of forced debarkation. Anyway, to address your triplespeak, there really is none there, if you read it carefully. It says they will not return alcoholic beverages seize on embarkation day. It says they will return beverages that you buy at port stops and hand over on reboarding the ship. Different policies for different scenarios.

 

And yes, it says you may be disembarked if you "over consume, provide alcohol to people under age 21, demonstrate irresponsible behavior, or attempt to conceal alcoholic items at security and or luggage check points or any other time." The may in there just gives them lattitude to consider the circumstances. There have been many instances of forced debarkation over the years for violations of the underage drinking issue and the irresponsible behavior issue. The attempt to conceal, by itself, has not cause forced debarkation that I know of, unless there is truth to the recent thread.

[twoputt.plusone]

Talk about triplespeak.

 

They say they will not return your beverages, they will return your beverages on the day of debarkation, \and you may be disembarked. :eek:

 

This foillows YEARS of being allowed to freely bring these things on board until the GS age.

 

I'd LOVE to see the first occurance of forced debarkation be challenged in a court of law.

 

Just sayin'.

 

My job requires me to spend a fair amount of time in court. Almost without exception, a JP will ask what our past practices have been in a given situation. He or she doesn't dwell on what the rules state, rather how have we enforce them on a daily basis. In other words, your past can come back to bite you.

 

Two things have stuck in my mind from legal courses taken years ago.... 1. Always know your juristiction. 2. Know the difference between the words "may" and "shall".

[Grandiva]

Security may inspect containers (water bottles, soda bottles, mouthwash, luggage etc.) and will dispose of containers holding alcohol. Guests who violate any alcohol policies, (over consume, provide alcohol to people under age 21, demonstrate irresponsible behavior, or attempt to conceal alcoholic items at security and or luggage check points or any other time), may be disembarked or not allowed to board, at their own expense, in accordance with our Guest Conduct Policy. Guests who are under the permitted drinking age will not have alcohol returned to them.

 

OOPs,

 

Read it again, "May be disembarked". It doesn't say what would trigger it, but they MAY.

 

 

Clearly states what would "trigger" a disembarkment." MAY means "reserves the right to....."

[MrPete]

You do realize, don't you, that there have been many instances of forced debarkation. Anyway, to address your triplespeak, there really is none there, if you read it carefully. It says they will not return alcoholic beverages seize on embarkation day. It says they will return beverages that you buy at port stops and hand over on reboarding the ship. Different policies for different scenarios.

 

And yes, it says you may be disembarked if you "over consume, provide alcohol to people under age 21, demonstrate irresponsible behavior, or attempt to conceal alcoholic items at security and or luggage check points or any other time." The may in there just gives them lattitude to consider the circumstances. There have been many instances of forced debarkation over the years for violations of the underage drinking issue and the irresponsible behavior issue. The attempt to conceal, by itself, has not cause forced debarkation that I know of, unless there is truth to the recent thread.

 

Unfortunately, the original post has been altered.

[andrzej5914]

You do realize, don't you, that there have been many instances of forced debarkation. Anyway, to address your triplespeak, there really is none there, if you read it carefully. It says they will not return alcoholic beverages seize on embarkation day. It says they will return beverages that you buy at port stops and hand over on reboarding the ship. Different policies for different scenarios.

.

 

Once again, that's not what happened during our cruise on the Grandeur. Ours and many other's "confiscated" alcohol on the embarkation day was returned on the last evening of the cruise.

[Grandiva]

My job requires me to spend a fair amount of time in court. Almost without exception, a JP will ask what our past practices have been in a given situation. He or she doesn't dwell on what the rules state, rather how have we enforce them on a daily basis. In other words, your past can come back to bite you.

 

Two things have stuck in my mind from legal courses taken years ago.... 1. Always know your juristiction. 2. Know the difference between the words "may" and "shall".

 

What courts are you in? MAY is the "operative" word in the "contract." If the wording MAY is in a "contract", that is what will win for them in a court of law. Past practices would have nothing to do with a court ruling, only contract wording. The first thing a good defense attorney would do is define MAY.

[asylum575]

Well after reading this again. I will continue to not bring alcohol on board.

[Paul65]

Unfortunately, the original post has been altered.

 

What was altered about it? I don't think the cut & paste of the alcohol policy from the website was altered, was it?

[Paul65]

Once again, that's not what happened during our cruise on the Grandeur. Ours and many other's "confiscated" alcohol on the embarkation day was returned on the last evening of the cruise.

 

Yes. That is a relatively new wording of the policy, and from some of the reports on this forum, they are enforcing it at least on some ships.

[MrPete]

What was altered about it? I don't think the cut & paste of the alcohol policy from the website was altered, was it?

 

There were THREE separate Q & A's. Now there is only one.

[zekekelso]

What courts are you in? MAY is the "operative" word in the "contract." If the wording MAY is in a "contract", that is what will win for them in a court of law. Past practices would have nothing to do with a court ruling, only contract wording.

This is simply not true. When dealing with a non-negotiated contract, the reasonable expectations of the parties (which would be based in part on past practices) is at least as important as the technical wording of the contract.

RCI can't just put anything in the contract and have the courts enforce it because "it's in the contract."

[Grandiva]

This is simply not true. When dealing with a non-negotiated contract, the reasonable expectations of the parties (which would be based in part on past practices) is at least as important as the technical wording of the contract.

 

RCI can't just put anything in the contract and have the courts enforce it because "it's in the contract."

 

 

Sure they do. Ever heard of "read the fine print, before signing. ---suggested for a reason. All contracts are not negotiated between the parties.When is the last time you were able to negotiate the details of a contract when accepting a credit card, financing a car, or entering into a mortgage...... (simple examples) those are contracts, you know. Contracts always prevail in a court of law UNLESS, the terms of the contact are illegal. Parties argue the terms, including but not limited to, word definations in courts all the time.

 

When one party does not comply, it is called a breach. L1 basics.

[CruiseKeeper]

This is simply not true. When dealing with a non-negotiated contract, the reasonable expectations of the parties (which would be based in part on past practices) is at least as important as the technical wording of the contract.

 

RCI can't just put anything in the contract and have the courts enforce it because "it's in the contract."

 

Agree. Past practice is just as important as the written contract. The very existence of a "naughty room" where unopened bottles are stored for return at the end of the cruise and opened bottles are dumped = contract. This naughty room business has been taking place for such a long time and has been accepted practice by the cruise line and passengers.

[zekekelso]

Contracts always prevail in a court of law UNLESS, the terms of the contact are illegal.

Again, this simply isn't true. RCI could put in the contract that if you eat breakfast in the MDR, you have to forfeit your house to them. There's nothing illegal about that, but it wouldn't be enforceable.

Look, you aren't going to believe a stranger on the internet about how the law works (nor should you.) But do some research. Look up "contract of adhesion" for starters.

[klfhngr]

OMG, not again!!!!

 

Where's that gif file of 'a man beating a dead horse' when you need it!!

[Paul65]

Again, this simply isn't true. RCI could put in the contract that if you eat breakfast in the MDR, you have to forfeit your house to them. There's nothing illegal about that, but it wouldn't be enforceable.

 

I don't think either of you are completely right or wrong. Past practice can be taken into consideration, but they could also start enforcing rules more strictly than before, and it would most likely hold up. It would have to at least be reasonable, and the scenario above is not at all a reasonable condition. But to say that they could refuse boarding to someone who was aware of rules against bringing alcohol onboard and was deliberately hiding it in a "rum runner" or some other alternative container . . . I think that would likely hold up in court, even if this degree of enforcement is more severe than past practice.

 

Of course, if you're talking jury trial, just about anything could happen, depending upon who gets the emotion of the jury on their side.

[Grandiva]

Again, this simply isn't true. RCI could put in the contract that if you eat breakfast in the MDR, you have to forfeit your house to them. There's nothing illegal about that, but it wouldn't be enforceable.

Look, you aren't going to believe a stranger on the internet about how the law works (nor should you.) But do some research. Look up "contract of adhesion" for starters.

 

I will say that people, especially old people, lose their property and valuables to BS contracts all time. A good attorney can recoup, sometimes, under elderly abuse laws, sadly many don't. If you truly believe what I have higlighted in your post, then I have some beautiful lush swamp land to sell you in south Florida. If you signed such a contracual document, you would have "accepted and agreed" to the terms. I don't need to believe strangers on the internet concerning legal issues. However, I do believe and can rightfully apply, the lengthy legal education I've had.

 

I'm not going to argue or debate legality. You win this one.

[Snoofer]

Think about it.... if RCCL puts the cruiser off the ship on embarkation, they will lose the alcohol revenue for the cruise the guy is going to have to buy because they confiscated his booze. Why would they shoot themselves in the foot?

[Grandiva]

Of course, if you're talking jury trial, just about anything could happen, depending upon who gets the emotion of the jury on their side.

 

• Emotions aside, jury instructions prevail. When the law is ingnored and not applied as a result of an emotional jury, the judge will throw out the jury decision and rule. The rest of your statement stands on correct assumption. Thanks:)