NCL Dawn limping from port to port

[CruisinGerman]

Dear friends:

 

I have read through all of the posts on this thread. My conclusion and opinion is that NCL did not deliver an acceptable product on this cruise.

 

All of the NCL cheerleaders who take refuge in the "cruise contract" do not realize that it is customary practice in the United States for companies to issue what are referred to as unilateral, non-negotiable, standard form adhesion contracts. These contracts are purposely written to exonerate the cruise line from everything and scare the consumer public into believing that they have no potential claim against anything.

 

I do know the courts in the United States scrutinize this type of contract very carefully before giving it value, because the courts know very well that the consumer was not in a position of equal bargaining. Here in the European Union, and in Spain (where I practice law), these contracts are considered to be abusive by the courts, and there are special consumer protection travel laws in effect which, essentially, override whatever is said in these contracts.

 

Getting back to the issue at hand, many of you are comparing the missed ports to weather-related incidents such as wind, storms, hurricane, etc. That is definitely not the case here. The missed ports were due to a mechanical failure of the ship. A mechanical failure, whether or not foreseen, is absolutely the cruise line's responsibility. Furthermore, in this case, it appears that the mechanical difficulty was absolutely foreseen because the ship had experienced similar problems during past cruises.

 

Taking all of the subjective opinion and emotion out of the experience while on the cruise, simply from a factual position, the passengers missed a majority of the scheduled ports because of an incident that was within the responsibility of the cruise line (mechanical failure), the ship limped around the Caribbean at about half of its expected speed, and to top it all there was a fire onboard the ship which woke everybody up in the middle of the night and caused temporary cabin evacuations, etc.

 

Just the mere fact that passengers knew there was engine failure causing the ship to travel at half speed would be enough to frighten even the most experienced cruiser -- and let's not forget about the many, many first-time cruisers aboard any given sailing.

 

No matter what NCL may try to write in their contracts, I think there is a reasonable expectation that when somebody purchases a cruise they will spend the cruise on a safe ship operating without mechanical difficulty at its normal speed. This did not happen, and this, in my opinion, would be NCL's obligation.

 

So without getting into any of the subjective opinions about the food being bad, the swimming pool being too small or the cabin not being cleaned properly, the passengers were indeed made to spend the entire cruise traveling aboard a ship with a known engine problem causing the ship to run at half speed, and causing the ship to significantly alter its itinerary.

 

Whether or not NCL is obliged to offer any compensation is another matter of significant debate. However, in light of the objective circumstances, I believe they should offer a refund of anywhere from 50% to 100% of the cruise.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[MTL=CRUISEFAMILY]

Dear friends:

 

I have read through all of the posts on this thread. My conclusion and opinion is that NCL did not deliver an acceptable product on this cruise.

 

All of the NCL cheerleaders who take refuge in the "cruise contract" do not realize that it is customary practice in the United States for companies to issue what are referred to as unilateral, non-negotiable, standard form adhesion contracts. These contracts are purposely written to exonerate the cruise line from everything and scare the consumer public into believing that they have no potential claim against anything.

 

I do know the courts in the United States scrutinize this type of contract very carefully before giving it value, because the courts know very well that the consumer was not in a position of equal bargaining. Here in the European Union, and in Spain (where I practice law), these contracts are considered to be abusive by the courts, and there are special consumer protection travel laws in effect which, essentially, override whatever is said in these contracts.

 

Getting back to the issue at hand, many of you are comparing the missed ports to weather-related incidents such as wind, storms, hurricane, etc. That is definitely not the case here. The missed ports were due to a mechanical failure of the ship. A mechanical failure, whether or not foreseen, is absolutely the cruise line's responsibility. Furthermore, in this case, it appears that the mechanical difficulty was absolutely foreseen because the ship had experienced similar problems during past cruises.

 

Taking all of the subjective opinion and emotion out of the experience while on the cruise, simply from a factual position, the passengers missed a majority of the scheduled ports because of an incident that was within the responsibility of the cruise line (mechanical failure), the ship limped around the Caribbean at about half of its expected speed, and to top it all there was a fire onboard the ship which woke everybody up in the middle of the night and caused temporary cabin evacuations, etc.

 

Just the mere fact that passengers knew there was engine failure causing the ship to travel at half speed would be enough to frighten even the most experienced cruiser -- and let's not forget about the many, many first-time cruisers aboard any given sailing.

 

No matter what NCL may try to write in their contracts, I think there is a reasonable expectation that when somebody purchases a cruise they will spend the cruise on a safe ship operating without mechanical difficulty at its normal speed. This did not happen, and this, in my opinion, would be NCL's obligation.

 

So without getting into any of the subjective opinions about the food being bad, the swimming pool being too small or the cabin not being cleaned properly, the passengers were indeed made to spend the entire cruise traveling aboard a ship with a known engine problem causing the ship to run at half speed, and causing the ship to significantly alter its itinerary.

 

Whether or not NCL is obliged to offer any compensation is another matter of significant debate. However, in light of the objective circumstances, I believe they should offer a refund of anywhere from 50% to 100% of the cruise.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

You make reasonable points, and most of your accounts are accurate, you just did not mention that NCL did give a $200 obc, and 10% off a future cruise. Not all cruisers are the same, and this may satisfy some, but not others.

 

My question is, If NCL informs me that there is engine trouble in Sept or October in writing and there may be port time adjustments, and I still choose to go, Can I really complain when mechanical failure happens?

 

I am taking a gamble as much as the cruiseline is.

It is different if it happens the night before your cruise, knowing there has been engine trouble, and it would make those very uncomfortable, as I imagine those who were on this recent sailing were and are.

 

I AM ON THE FENCE NOW..

 

..But in the end engine problems known or unforeseen does not change the fact that this does happen, some can digest the port changes , some cannot.

 

..as for the legal matter, well of course NCL will issue a unilateral contract,(as do all other lines)... how else can they do business?...Can you imagine how many refunds they would have to issue if there was not wall?

 

just my opinion, it may change if MY cruise ......Well, let's stay positive for now.

[Dr. Jack Daniels]

However, in light of the objective circumstances, I believe they should offer a refund of anywhere from 50% to 100% of the cruise.

 

So you rec'd a 9 day cruise, a $200 onboard credit, 10% off of a future cruise and now you think your are entitled to all of your money back?:eek:

 

Time for a reality check.

[debt]

Dear friends:

 

I have read through all of the posts on this thread. My conclusion and opinion is that NCL did not deliver an acceptable product on this cruise.

 

All of the NCL cheerleaders who take refuge in the "cruise contract" do not realize that it is customary practice in the United States for companies to issue what are referred to as unilateral, non-negotiable, standard form adhesion contracts. These contracts are purposely written to exonerate the cruise line from everything and scare the consumer public into believing that they have no potential claim against anything.

 

I do know the courts in the United States scrutinize this type of contract very carefully before giving it value, because the courts know very well that the consumer was not in a position of equal bargaining. Here in the European Union, and in Spain (where I practice law), these contracts are considered to be abusive by the courts, and there are special consumer protection travel laws in effect which, essentially, override whatever is said in these contracts.

 

Getting back to the issue at hand, many of you are comparing the missed ports to weather-related incidents such as wind, storms, hurricane, etc. That is definitely not the case here. The missed ports were due to a mechanical failure of the ship. A mechanical failure, whether or not foreseen, is absolutely the cruise line's responsibility. Furthermore, in this case, it appears that the mechanical difficulty was absolutely foreseen because the ship had experienced similar problems during past cruises.

 

Taking all of the subjective opinion and emotion out of the experience while on the cruise, simply from a factual position, the passengers missed a majority of the scheduled ports because of an incident that was within the responsibility of the cruise line (mechanical failure), the ship limped around the Caribbean at about half of its expected speed, and to top it all there was a fire onboard the ship which woke everybody up in the middle of the night and caused temporary cabin evacuations, etc.

 

Just the mere fact that passengers knew there was engine failure causing the ship to travel at half speed would be enough to frighten even the most experienced cruiser -- and let's not forget about the many, many first-time cruisers aboard any given sailing.

 

No matter what NCL may try to write in their contracts, I think there is a reasonable expectation that when somebody purchases a cruise they will spend the cruise on a safe ship operating without mechanical difficulty at its normal speed. This did not happen, and this, in my opinion, would be NCL's obligation.

 

So without getting into any of the subjective opinions about the food being bad, the swimming pool being too small or the cabin not being cleaned properly, the passengers were indeed made to spend the entire cruise traveling aboard a ship with a known engine problem causing the ship to run at half speed, and causing the ship to significantly alter its itinerary.

 

Whether or not NCL is obliged to offer any compensation is another matter of significant debate. However, in light of the objective circumstances, I believe they should offer a refund of anywhere from 50% to 100% of the cruise.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

What type of law do you generally practice in the European Union (and Spain)?

[CruisinGerman]

Dear friends:

 

Many of the posts say they were never informed of the engine problem and itinerary change prior to the cruise.

 

I was referring to the people who were not informed prior to taking the cruise.

 

Those who were informed and still opted to go on the cruise, the compensation given (onboard credit and 10% off a future cruise) was probably fair.

 

And for the person who asks what kind of law I practice, I negotiate the purchase of aircraft for major airlines, as well as maritime law, and I do "pro bono" work for immigrants on immigration matters and for consumers on consumer complaints.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[Cruisin'cockney]

We will probably not book another NCL cruise - all our other cruises were on Carnival and we have never had a bad experience with them.

 

Hmmm - good decision as Carnival have never had any problems with engines, fires onboard etc. :rolleyes:

 

Let's face it, both CCL and RCL have had major problems recently with cruisers threatening blue murder when the cruise has run into problems and this particular incident is probably considerably less inconvenient than the problems experienced by the other lines I mentioned above. That is not to belittle the disappointment of those on the Dawn but merely to underline that boycotting NCL will not make you immune to problems that can hit ALL cruiselines. Yes, this was a problem that NCL knew may cause difficulty but the only solution was to cancel cruises which would probably result in 100% of unhappy PAX. By running the cruise with an amended schedule there was a good chance that at least some of the cruisers would be satisfied and have a great holiday.

 

Unfortunately, there are many who are unhappy and post on this board even when the cruiseline hits all ports and delivers the advertised schedule. By missing ports, there was zero chance of achieving customer satisfaction.

[imajica]

Thank you Gunther and Uta for your objective post.

We are travelling on April 8th on the 14 night cruise. Yes I know its a long way off and hopefully things will have been resolved by then. However, we are concerned that our cruise will not be as advertised.

I appreciate that sometimes a port has to be missed due to an event outside of the ships control.

In the UK we have to have our cars MOT'd to ensure they are mechanically sound and fit and safe for purpose. Is there a comparable measure for cruise ships ? I would hope so! And so after being assured by NCL that our cruise will go ahead as planned, I have to place my trust in them that will provide me with a product that has met with health and safety regulations on a vessel that is fit for purpose.

I look forward to reading the reviews and posts of passengers that are currently onboard and hope that they are having a wonderful holiday.

 

:)

[halos]

What we need is fair and balanced passenger reviews, the Good, the Bad and the Ugly to give us all a better understanding of the problem(s). It's difficult to understand and appreciate the various "rants" without knowing the facts, especially since we were not on their cruise.

.

 

This is not unusual...even on the best of sailings this happens.

I sailed (along with Dr Jack D) on the Dawn jan 28th...like he said, it was the best cruise I have had to date. We didn't have the issues that these people had (and I'm sorry they didn't have the same experience we did)...we had sunshine for 9 days and seas were perfect. I actually took a photo of the TV screen where it showed seas at 0 feet...The sea was like a sheet of glass....Despite this, there was a woman on the ship screaming that this was the 'rockiest' cruise she had ever taken. :eek:

You gotta be kidding me?!

 

The only way you could even tell we were moving (and we were traveling in excess of 20 knots) was to actually look out at the water.

 

 

Some people just can't be pleased...even when the cruise is good. Which is why when it isn't perfect, more displeased folks cause the whole atmosphere on board to change.

THAT is my biggest fear because THAT can ruin a cruise for sure (for me)....not missed ports.

The mood of the passengers affects the mood of the crew...Once the crew start getting treated poorly, it's hard for them to keep up the 'happy facade' and then even the passengers that are trying to make the best of a bad situation, start to feel the mood/energy on the ship change in a negative way.

In my opinion THAT is what ruins a cruise like this....missed ports don't do that much damage. People and their piss-poor attitudes do. It's clear from posts here from people who were on this sailing, that some handled it and some obviously did NOT.

 

Who would you all rather cruise with on your next sailing???????? The answer is pretty obvious to me.

[Mooder]

We cruised on the NCL Dawn too. 2/11/11 to 2/20/11. This is the first time ever sailed with NCL. And what bigtree01 stated on 2/16/11 is exactly what happened and what we where told, right down to the letters we received too.

 

We picked this cruise/ship for the ports and don't feel very satisfied when we ended up at two ports that we've been to before. So we just ended up staying on the limping ship for 8 days of the 10 days. Also paid extra for a balcony to see the new ports and just saw the same ports/side of Oasis of the Seas in St. Thomas. If we had pick to return to these ports, we wouldn't have gotten a balcony. Also feel like we over paid for the cruise we got for the $3000.00 plus we spent.

 

Feel like we've been pirated at sea. And NCL hopefully will answer the written letters, about the dissatifaction of the cruise we ended up with. Hopefully the letters we write will help future cruisers, and they get to enjoy the vacation that they've paid for.

 

Also agree the customer relations onboard the Dawn where careless to our disappointments.

 

Good Luck to you all.

 

I'm sorry this happened to you. What have you asked for as "compensation"?

[oldguysandgalls]

Hi eletricron,

We agree, different people experience life differently, we on the other hand are the :) eternal optimists :) kind of people and we are confident our upcoming November cruise on the Dawn will be another great cruise.

 

What we meant to say with our posts was that the various and negative comments on this board may have caused some passengers especially first time cruisers, some anxiety largely because of the inconsistencies.

 

But again and as you said, "some see a glass half full while others see it half empty".

 

Here's wishing that all our days continue to be full with glasses filled to the rim. :)

 

 

 

 

 

Why should NCL respond to anyone here? It's great when they do, but they aren't required to do so. How NCL compensates other cruisers isn't your business. Different people experience life differently, some see a glass half full while others see it half empty. That's why you read so many inconsistent reviews.

I've read somewhere years ago that passengers filling out the cruise line's questionnaire are twice more unfavorable if it rains or there is other bad weather on a cruise. Something completely out of the control of any human or cruise line.

The Dawn is having some engine problems which should be fixed at its next drydock. On its shorter 5 and 9 day cruises, it apparently made all the ports on its itinerary. But that wasn't true with its recent longer 10 and 11 day cruises.

It's limited on maximum speed, and couldn't go fast enough to make all the ports. I doubt we'll ever know the entire truth. I might not even have the facts straight, because what I've read is just information passed along on these boards.

Never-the-less, the Dawn drydock has been moved up and is scheduled for May, it had been scheduled for October. If you're future cruise is later, there's a great chance all the engines problems will be fixed by the time you sail. There's always the chance new engine problems could arise after the drydock as with any and every ship in the world at any time...

[Mooder]

Thank you so very much for sharing your experience, it helps all of us to know the truth, it will help all of us receive justice

 

What would that be? I feel so badly for all of you, but I still don't know what you are hoping to receive. I can't flame or agree because I don't know if you are being reasonable or not.

 

If what you all want is to share your experience and receive sympathy, then you hve that. I would be disappointed too. In fact, I know exactly how you feel. My very first cruise was what we in my family call "the cruise from hell." We resolved never to cruise again. (a resolve that we broke 12 years later and have been cruising ever since). But I didn't expect anything unreasonable because that's life and we made the best of it.

[oldguysandgalls]

halos..you are 100% right; that's why we try and avoid the "perpetual chronic complainers" while on board while we and a few thousand other "happy passengers" are enjoying the cruise. Thank you again for your positive posts.

 

 

This is not unusual...even on the best of sailings this happens.

I sailed (along with Dr Jack D) on the Dawn jan 28th...like he said, it was the best cruise I have had to date. We didn't have the issues that these people had (and I'm sorry they didn't have the same experience we did)...we had sunshine for 9 days and seas were perfect. I actually took a photo of the TV screen where it showed seas at 0 feet...The sea was like a sheet of glass....Despite this, there was a woman on the ship screaming that this was the 'rockiest' cruise she had ever taken. :eek:

You gotta be kidding me?!

 

The only way you could even tell we were moving (and we were traveling in excess of 20 knots) was to actually look out at the water.

 

 

Some people just can't be pleased...even when the cruise is good. Which is why when it isn't perfect, more displeased folks cause the whole atmosphere on board to change.

THAT is my biggest fear because THAT can ruin a cruise for sure (for me)....not missed ports.

The mood of the passengers affects the mood of the crew...Once the crew start getting treated poorly, it's hard for them to keep up the 'happy facade' and then even the passengers that are trying to make the best of a bad situation, start to feel the mood/energy on the ship change in a negative way.

In my opinion THAT is what ruins a cruise like this....missed ports don't do that much damage. People and their piss-poor attitudes do. It's clear from posts here from people who were on this sailing, that some handled it and some obviously did NOT.

 

Who would you all rather cruise with on your next sailing???????? The answer is pretty obvious to me.

[sjbdtz]

To the previous poster who is going to see the mayan ruins at "end of calendar", cancel your cruise and fly in a few days earlier just in case there are flight issues.

 

Extra bonus: Only have to buy one-way airfare! :rolleyes::p:eek:

 

 

 

Under the circumstances, the captain, crew and NCL did everything they could possbly do to make the best out of a bad situation. We felt that the compensation offered was more than fair.

 

To say NCL failed is far too harsh IMO.

 

You can always tell those who are fishing for compensation, by the vitriol in their posts.

 

I would happily cruise with you, any day. Plus I grew up in Whitby, so we're almost kin... :)

 

 

.

[camz]

It is really aggravating the way some people trash NCL and their cruise experience especially when things are out of NCL's control. Port changes are a very real part of the cruising industry. On a cruise aboard the Majesty our port of call was changed because a young boy fell through the guardrails several levels in the Aft stairway. We woke up to find ourselves at Nassau. Wow, no big deal just hoped the child would be okay! I don't even understand why this would be such a big deal for any passenger. Weather and operations of the ship also come into play with itinerary changes. If people would actually read their NCL paperwork they would see that this clause is spelled out for them so there should be no surprises when changes cannot be avoided. :)

[CruisinGerman]

Dear friends:

 

There is a huge difference between a medical emergency onboard, or missing ports due to weather, as opposed to missing ports because the engines are broken and the ship can only travel at half the speed.

 

The cruise line definitely is responsible for making sure it's ship is in working order, no matter what they write in their contracts, and while I can understand perfectly consumer empathy when an emergency does occur such as a medical situation, or bad weather, but I do not understand any passenger siding with NCL or any other cruise line and accepting that a cruise line does not have the obligation to carry the passenger on a ship that is free from mechanical failures and that is able to ride at normal speed.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[Dr. Jack Daniels]

Dear friends:

 

I do not understand any passenger siding with NCL or any other cruise line and accepting that a cruise line does not have the obligation to carry the passenger on a ship that is free from mechanical failures and that is able to ride at normal speed.

 

 

It is impossible to guarantee that the ship will not have mechanical breakdowns.

[Planer's Edge]

Dear friends:

 

There is a huge difference between a medical emergency onboard, or missing ports due to weather, as opposed to missing ports because the engines are broken and the ship can only travel at half the speed.

 

The cruise line definitely is responsible for making sure it's ship is in working order, no matter what they write in their contracts, and while I can understand perfectly consumer empathy when an emergency does occur such as a medical situation, or bad weather, but I do not understand any passenger siding with NCL or any other cruise line and accepting that a cruise line does not have the obligation to carry the passenger on a ship that is free from mechanical failures and that is able to ride at normal speed.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

Well, I am glad you have your "consumer protections" in place to cover things like this so you can be properly compensated for what we consider "Ship Happens".

 

PE

[PeleNipsy]

Dear friends:

 

There is a huge difference between a medical emergency onboard, or missing ports due to weather, as opposed to missing ports because the engines are broken and the ship can only travel at half the speed.

 

The cruise line definitely is responsible for making sure it's ship is in working order, no matter what they write in their contracts, and while I can understand perfectly consumer empathy when an emergency does occur such as a medical situation, or bad weather, but I do not understand any passenger siding with NCL or any other cruise line and accepting that a cruise line does not have the obligation to carry the passenger on a ship that is free from mechanical failures and that is able to ride at normal speed.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

Well put! I think this sums up quite nicely the point that everyone upset has been trying to make. I'm on the Dawn's sailing that leaves next week, but am a tad nervous after the past 9-day. Either way, it'll be a nice vacation; however, I will be disappointed if we don't make it to 60% of the scheduled ports.

[tntornadox]

But the NCL 'siders' have a point- it is spelled out in the cruise contract that ports may be missed due to weather or mechanical difficulties. It actually says it... right there.

[Cruzin_Susan]

Is it true that is says in the contract that ports can be missed due to weather or mechanical diffculties?? :confused::p

 

Sorry I couldnt resist. Wholy cow talk about beating a dead horse..I think thats the saying. :eek:

[PeleNipsy]

Deleted comment.

[tntornadox]

Actually, I thought it said that, but NCL has taken it a step further...: "The Guest agrees that the Carrier has the sole discretion and liberty to direct the movements of the vessel, including the rights to: proceed without pilots and tow, and assist other vessels in all situations; deviate from the voyage or the normal course for any purpose, including, without limitation, in the interests of the Guests or the vessel, or to save life or property; put in at any unschedules or unadvertised port; cancel any scheduled call at any port for any reason and at any time before, during or after the sailing of the vessel."

 

Link: https://www.ncl.com/csimages/602/727/NCL_Guest_Ticket_Contract.pdf

Page 4, section C.

 

In essence, the cruise contract every guest agrees to gives NCL 'carte blanche' in skipping ports for any reason and substituting or not substituting a replacement port.

[CruisinGerman]

Yes it's clearly stated in that famous very fair contract that was equally negotiated on fair footing between both parties that the cruise line is not responsible for mechanical problems.

 

And your contracts in the United States also used to say that you couldn't sell houses or life insurance policies to blacks.

 

Yes, of course, stuff happens, and a cruise line can have mechanical problems that can significantly impact the itinerary of the cruise. But the cruise line is responsible for its mechanical problems ..... that is the difference, while it is not responsible for the weather.

 

Don't believe everything you read in "contracts".

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[MTL=CRUISEFAMILY]

Actually, I thought it said that, but NCL has taken it a step further...: "The Guest agrees that the Carrier has the sole discretion and liberty to direct the movements of the vessel, including the rights to: proceed without pilots and tow, and assist other vessels in all situations; deviate from the voyage or the normal course for any purpose, including, without limitation, in the interests of the Guests or the vessel, or to save life or property; put in at any unschedules or unadvertised port; cancel any scheduled call at any port for any reason and at any time before, during or after the sailing of the vessel."

 

Link: https://www.ncl.com/csimages/602/727/NCL_Guest_Ticket_Contract.pdf

Page 4, section C.

 

In essence, the cruise contract every guest agrees to gives NCL 'carte blanche' in skipping ports for any reason and substituting or not substituting a replacement port.

 

How is this different from any cruiseline? as an example I looked up Royal Caribbean:

 

http://www.royalcaribbean.com/content/en_US/pdf/CTC_Not_For_BR.pdf

 

6. CANCELLATION, DEVIATION OR SUBSTITUTION BY CARRIER:

Carrier may for any reason at any time and without prior notice, cancel, advance, postpone or deviate from any scheduled sailing, port of call, destination,

lodging or any activity on or off the Vessel, or substitute another vessel or port of call, destination, lodging or activity. Carrier shall not be liable for any

claim whatsoever by Passenger, including but not limited to loss, compensation or refund, by reason of such cancellation, advancement, postponement,

substitution or deviation.

In connection with a CruiseTour, Carrier has the same right to cancel, advance, postpone or deviate from any scheduled activity, departure or destination,

or substitute another railcar, bus, destination or lodging or other component of the CruiseTour. Carrier shall not be liable for any claim by Passenger

whatsoever, including but not limited to loss, compensation or refund, by reason of such cancellation, advancement, postponement, substitution or

deviation.

By way of example, and not limitation, Carrier may, without liability, deviate from any scheduled sailing and may otherwise land Passenger and her

property at any port if Carrier believes that the voyage or any Passenger or property may be hindered or adversely affected as a result of hostilities,

blockages, prevailing weather conditions, labor conflicts, strikes onboard or ashore, breakdown of Vessel, congestion, docking difficulties, medical or life

saving emergencies or any other cause whatsoever.

Carrier shall have the right to comply with any orders, recommendations, or directions whatsoever given by any governmental entity or by persons

purporting to act with such authority and such compliance shall not be deemed a breach of this Agreement entitling the Passenger to assert any claim for

liability, compensation or refund.

[tntornadox]

Here in the United States, a contract is a legally binding document. It is agreed upon by both parties because the passenger AGREES to it when they set foot on their vessel. They can choose to NOT agree to it and not board, should they so choose.

 

And I don't know what bringing racial discrimination into this has anything to do with anything?

 

Also, it is nearly impossible to sue a cruise line on these grounds and win. For one, you must appear in court in Miami, regardless of where the alleged incident occured and you must argue your case. More than likely the judge will allude to the contract and throw it out. You just wasted time, money and energy better spent elsewhere.

 

In essence, it's a cruise. It's meant for relaxation and enjoyment...

 

Edit: ^ Sorry, you posted before I had a chance to read your posting. So it would appear all cruise lines have 'carte blanche' written into their contracts now.