jo24 Posted December 17, 2013 #26 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Here's the link... http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/16/could-carnival-have-avoided-the-triumph-cruise-nightmare/ OMG :O Thank you for the link. I totally agree about RCCL commitment to safety. I have only ever sailed with them but seeing that just cements in my mind that I am sailing with a safe company. I am still :O Jo :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruising89143 Posted December 17, 2013 #27 Share Posted December 17, 2013 (edited) I suspect someone at Carnival with a shred of foresight and PR savvy looked at that language prior to enacting their contractual changes, felt a cold shiver down their spine, and made sure it was changed going forward. Some on the CCL board said NCL is still using similar language. I haven't independently verified but, if true, I suspect it'll be gone in short order. Here is NCL's contract. http://www.ncl.com/csimages/602/727/NCL_Guest_Ticket_Contract.pdf RCI's contract is dated 3/28/11. Edited December 17, 2013 by cruisingator2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepless Posted December 17, 2013 #28 Share Posted December 17, 2013 (edited) Again, that wording that CNN showed does not appear in Carnival's current ticket contract. Watching the video it appears that they were quoting a Carnival lawyer, and if so that shame on him, but that was not taken from their current contract. It's entirely possible that the phrase was in the contract that was valid at the time of the Triumph incident but I don't have access to the older contracts. So, we don't know when Carnival changed their contract and we don't know when Royal changed their contract. They may have been concurrent. I don't like Carnival and I don't see myself ever cruising with them, so I'm not blindly defending them, but I think CNN is doing their usual stellar job of reporting the facts. :rolleyes: I did watch the show on CNN last night. I was not pleased with the report. I think quoting the lawyer, they was they did is a PR disaster. Edited December 17, 2013 by sleepless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave85 Posted December 17, 2013 #29 Share Posted December 17, 2013 This would be like me as a preschool teacher saying; "I can't guarantee that your 4 yo child will be watched, fed or allowed to use the bathroom, and if they wander off or are injured by any items at our school, we are not responsible." :eek: When people pay for child care, they expect to receive childcare, not a disclaimer saying we can't guarantee to provide child care.:rolleyes: I would imagine it's the same with any business, but maybe a lawyer would know better if this has held up, but nothing would surprise me! LOL my wife and I (both lawyers) were discussing that this morning. Fortunately children are very well protecting by the law so the situation you raised would not occur. I have no idea though whether Carnival's contractual terms are enforceable, it's a very tricky area of law that I thankfully don't practice. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Familygoboston Posted December 17, 2013 #30 Share Posted December 17, 2013 LOL my wife and I (both lawyers) were discussing that this morning. Fortunately children are very well protecting by the law so the situation you raised would not occur. I have no idea though whether Carnival's contractual terms are enforceable, it's a very tricky area of law that I thankfully don't practice. :) Thankfully, our school doesn't have that disclaimer:p I know that there are all kinds of weird jurisdictional issues because these ships are flagged in one country, the company that owns them is incorporated in another, and of course since they port in various countries, each of those has laws that govern the ships, but can they really just shirk any kind of implied contract that comes with paying money to go on a ship and get somewhere else safely?? :confused: I'm sure that marine lawyer will get to the bottom of it;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daghis Posted December 17, 2013 #31 Share Posted December 17, 2013 But Carnival is claiming that their contract included that language as of the Triumph incident, which was in February of this year (2013). Hmm... I wonder whether this is actually true. This link should pull up Carnival's Ticket Contract from January 27, 2013 (thanks to http://www.archive.org). I can't find the word "seaworthy" anywhere in that copy of the document. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luvstocruise2 Posted December 17, 2013 #32 Share Posted December 17, 2013 No doubt cruise company cruise documents are meant to be "rear end covering" but I agree with others that the PR disaster will have more effects to come. I think the only thing that may help the cruise industry is the outcomes of class action suits will act as a deterrent to cruise companies to cut too many safety corners. I have a real aversion to trying Carnival (even though I was on Costa years ago before Carnival bought them) considering the problems of late. I was fine with that cruise I had on Costa, but the Concordia incident was "not helpful". What may happen is a slow march upward in cruise costs to passengers as I wonder if the whole mainstream industry (RCI, Carnival, NCL, etc) can afford to let this type of thing happen much- bad for future business so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonzo70 Posted December 17, 2013 #33 Share Posted December 17, 2013 (edited) RCI definitely had language in the cruise contract regarding not guaranteeing that the vessel is seaworthy. When I saw this thread it reminded me of a thread on Cruise Critic about this from the distant past; I was able to find it via search. Check out the first post on this thread under "Article 3": http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?p=10100231&highlight=seaworthy#post10100231 Edited December 17, 2013 by Gonzo70 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Familygoboston Posted December 17, 2013 #34 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Nice detective work Gonzo...if you stay here long enough you see everything, right??:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonzo70 Posted December 17, 2013 #35 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Nice detective work Gonzo...if you stay here long enough you see everything, right??:D Thanks. I remember being shocked when I saw that thread I linked; was really surprised they would put that in the cruise contract (I had never paid any attention to the contract previously). Because I was so surprised by the verbiage I immediately recalled the old thread when I saw this current thread. Good to learn that the wording appears to have since been removed, but likely was just omitted for PR reasons versus any genuine concern about our welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vitality08 Posted December 18, 2013 #36 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Again, that wording that CNN showed does not appear in Carnival's current ticket contract. Watching the video it appears that they were quoting a Carnival lawyer, and if so that shame on him, but that was not taken from their current contract. It's entirely possible that the phrase was in the contract that was valid at the time of the Triumph incident but I don't have access to the older contracts. So, we don't know when Carnival changed their contract and we don't know when Royal changed their contract. They may have been concurrent. I don't like Carnival and I don't see myself ever cruising with them, so I'm not blindly defending them, but I think CNN is doing their usual stellar job of reporting the facts. :rolleyes: I think it a defense the lawyers are offering now to try and limit their liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruising89143 Posted December 18, 2013 #37 Share Posted December 18, 2013 (edited) Carnival responds to last nights CNN show and the lawsuit. http://www.seatrade-insider.com/news/news-headlines/carnival-rebuts-claims-of-negligence-in-triumph-fire.html Edited December 18, 2013 by cruisingator2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tahqa Posted December 18, 2013 #38 Share Posted December 18, 2013 RCI definitely had language in the cruise contract regarding not guaranteeing that the vessel is seaworthy. When I saw this thread it reminded me of a thread on Cruise Critic about this from the distant past; I was able to find it via search. Check out the first post on this thread under "Article 3": http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?p=10100231&highlight=seaworthy#post10100231 Yeah, that thread is from 2007 and I haven't been able to find any newer reference to the clause, so I suspect Royal changed it some time in that time-frame. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tahqa Posted December 18, 2013 #39 Share Posted December 18, 2013 By the way, Disney's Cruise Ticket Contract says almost the exact same thing. http://disneycruise.disney.go.com/cruise-contract/?country=us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now