One less day on with change on Jewel - Not Fair!

[gusbourg]

And?

 

And they're reimbursing us 1/7 of what we paid. It'll be made in the form of onboard credit, but any unused onboard credit will be credited back to your CC.

[KeithJenner]

And they're reimbursing us 1/7 of what we paid. It'll be made in the form of onboard credit, but any unused onboard credit will be credited back to your CC.

 

 

 

That's good to hear.

[triptolemus]

And they're reimbursing us 1/7 of what we paid. It'll be made in the form of onboard credit, but any unused onboard credit will be credited back to your CC.

 

That's as good as it cat get, evidently.

 

I look forward to your next thread in a couple of weeks complaining about how long it's taking to receive your refund...

[krewzin]

And they're reimbursing us 1/7 of what we paid. It'll be made in the form of onboard credit, but any unused onboard credit will be credited back to your CC.

 

Good that they finally (were forced to) step up to the plate; they were shamed into doing the right thing.

 

This will honestly make me think twice about cruising NCL again.

Edited August 4, 2016 by krewzin

[Frick_&_Frack]

And they're reimbursing us 1/7 of what we paid. It'll be made in the form of onboard credit, but any unused onboard credit will be credited back to your CC.

 

That's good that you will get that since, a night in port that is "planned" but not the original cruise should at least get that from them (planned as in, not due to weather, or other unforeseen circumstances).

[S.S.Oceanlover]

If you get back to Seattle a day early, and the Captain says, "Get off my ship. Now.", then it is a six-day cruise.

 

Otherwise, you will receive your seven nights on the ship, which is what you booked.

 

If that is the case why dont they just stay tied up to the dock in Seattle for the whole week? As long as the captain doesn't say get off my ship, everybody should be ok with that, right?:rolleyes:

 

Bill

[swedish weave]

Our local television station (KIRO-7) has resolved this situation for us. Everyone look for a letter from NCL. I got mine in email about 5 minutes after talking to the KIRO producer.

 

You have reinforced my belief in the power of the media.

[casofilia]

Our local television station (KIRO-7) has resolved this situation for us. Everyone look for a letter from NCL. I got mine in email about 5 minutes after talking to the KIRO producer.

 

Congratulations to KIRO-7 and to all those who put the pressure on NCL.

[NLH Arizona]

And they're reimbursing us 1/7 of what we paid. It'll be made in the form of onboard credit, but any unused onboard credit will be credited back to your CC.

That is great; it was the right thing to do.

[Regguy]

There is nothing to arbitrate. NCL is doing more than is required by the contract that all passengers agree to.

 

I'd argue it's not a deviation. I'd argue it's a contract of adhesion and unenforceable. I'd also argue it's an mx failure, not a deviation, for which there is a specific clause in the contract, which outweighs the general.

 

(f) Mechanical Failures of the Vessel: In the event of cancellation of voyage due to mechanical failures of the vessel, the Guest will be entitled to a full refund of the cruise fare, or a partial refund for voyages that are terminated early due to those failures. In the event a voyage is terminated early due to

mechanical failure of the vessel, the Guest is also entitled to transportation to the vessel’s scheduled port of disembarkation or the Guest’s home city, at Carrier’s discretion and expense, as well as lodging at the unscheduled port of disembarkation, if required, at Carrier’s expense.

 

If the line wants to say the cruise wasn't "terminated early" because they gave an extra night in a port of departure, I'd argue at a minimum the point is ambiguous and ambiguities in contracts of adhesion are always construed against the drafted. And that's just what I came up with in 2 minutes.

 

That's without even looking at Florida law regarding contracts of adhesion and without looking at NCL marketing material which, if construed to permit what they are doing, almost surely violate consumer fraud statutes.

[gusbourg]

I'd argue it's not a deviation. I'd argue it's a contract of adhesion and unenforceable. I'd also argue it's an mx failure, not a deviation, for which there is a specific clause in the contract, which outweighs the general.

 

(f) Mechanical Failures of the Vessel: In the event of cancellation of voyage due to mechanical failures of the vessel, the Guest will be entitled to a full refund of the cruise fare, or a partial refund for voyages that are terminated early due to those failures. In the event a voyage is terminated early due to

mechanical failure of the vessel, the Guest is also entitled to transportation to the vessel’s scheduled port of disembarkation or the Guest’s home city, at Carrier’s discretion and expense, as well as lodging at the unscheduled port of disembarkation, if required, at Carrier’s expense.

 

If the line wants to say the cruise wasn't "terminated early" because they gave an extra night in a port of departure, I'd argue at a minimum the point is ambiguous and ambiguities in contracts of adhesion are always construed against the drafted. And that's just what I came up with in 2 minutes.

 

That's without even looking at Florida law regarding contracts of adhesion and without looking at NCL marketing material which, if construed to permit what they are doing, almost surely violate consumer fraud statutes.

 

Great points. With respect to this voyage we'll never know. I was also thinking about Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. Would such a narrow interpretation of the contract lead it to being considered unconscionable?

 

There's a further path I was exploring with respect to the ambiguity in decisions on shrink-wrap licenses. I'm not sure that the license, based upon the time it's accepted, would hold up....

[Regguy]

Great points. With respect to this voyage we'll never know. I was also thinking about Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. Would such a narrow interpretation of the contract lead it to being considered unconscionable?

 

There's a further path I was exploring with respect to the ambiguity in decisions on shrink-wrap licenses. I'm not sure that the license, based upon the time it's accepted, would hold up....

 

I also think their arbitration clause is pretty close to unconscionable -- it surely would be in some states but I really don't know about Florida.

 

If they are ever going to have that tested, I think they wouldn't want it tested in this case, since what they are doing is so obviously inequitable. I think they want it in some case where a guy gets drunk or whatever and makes a jerk out of himself and they throw him off the cruise for safety reasons and he brings a claim. That's the context in which you want to arbitrate or litigate tough enforceability questions, not one where you basically shortened a cruise because your vessel wasn't seaworthy and came up with an obvious artifice to continue to call a 6-day cruise a 7-day cruise.

[AdoraBelle]

And they're reimbursing us 1/7 of what we paid. It'll be made in the form of onboard credit, but any unused onboard credit will be credited back to your CC.

 

 

Good job, grats on keeping the pressure on.

[Annmeat]

And they're reimbursing us 1/7 of what we paid. It'll be made in the form of onboard credit, but any unused onboard credit will be credited back to your CC.

 

That is awesome! Enjoy your cruise:)

[jm485]

Glad NCL did the right thing with the refunds and hope you all have a good trip.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mking8288]

Our local television station (KIRO-7) has resolved this situation for us. Everyone look for a letter from NCL. I got mine in email about 5 minutes after talking to the KIRO producer.

Good, it's the least they can do in saving their faces with the media doing a bit of twisting a little bit. Reality is that, the loss is more than 1/7 of the cruise - the itinerary has 3 key port stops - Skagway being one of them, Victoria is just for regulatory compliance.

 

NCL boost the newest ships in the industry but surely don't need to the associated with chronic problems with the azipod systems.

 

Have no fear about what's in the contract that others referred to; but never under-estimate the influence and sway of the mass media - folks can make fun of the ship's captain but let's face it, the bucks didn't stop there - decisions and reversals/changes were done out of Miami HQ, much higher up on the food chain.

 

Time to tweet some appreciations to the folks at KIRO-7

[AK Dreaming]

Hi everyone, I was the OP and I just got my letter. I am not sure why the posts had to get so unfriendly to each other, but I am very satisfied with what NCL has decided. I believe it is fair now and I hope we all have a wonderful cruise!! Bon Voyage..

[AdoraBelle]

Hi everyone, I was the OP and I just got my letter. I am not sure why the posts had to get so unfriendly to each other, but I am very satisfied with what NCL has decided. I believe it is fair now and I hope we all have a wonderful cruise!! Bon Voyage..

 

 

I think most of us were rooting for you. Some people just have to do the devil's advocate thing no matter how absurd the cruise line's behavior is.

[fshagan]

Our local television station (KIRO-7) has resolved this situation for us. Everyone look for a letter from NCL. I got mine in email about 5 minutes after talking to the KIRO producer.

 

I"m glad they caved so fast to the media pressure. Too bad it took that, rather than the calls from their customers. This is a fail squared: NCL upset their customers and also ended up paying the same amount they would have without upsetting their customers.

[gusbourg]

I"m glad they caved so fast to the media pressure. Too bad it took that, rather than the calls from their customers. This is a fail squared: NCL upset their customers and also ended up paying the same amount they would have without upsetting their customers.

 

Maybe a fail cubed...

[Fido Chuckwagon]

I am wondering if this problem was discovered YESTERDAY during the Coast Guard inspection in Skagway????

 

Yes, by law they have to stop in Victoria (foreign port of call) before returning to the US. It would be nice if someday under enough pressure Congress would either repeal or update that law.

 

Seattle is the safest place for divers to go under the ship for the needed repair work and probably the only place where the needed parts are in place.

 

I am sorry that this is taking place but I also glad they are addressing the issue before it becomes a bigger issue. Mechanical parts fail. If we drove our own cars as hard as cruise ships are used day in day out, week in week out, I guess we would a failure of a mechanical part or two.

 

The laws they need to change need to go in the other direction. They need to get rid of these flags of convenience crap and force vessels that are operating primarily out of America and serving American clientele to be flagged in the US, then both the passengers and crew get the benefits of US law, such as consumer protection and employee protection.

[AdoraBelle]

The laws they need to change need to go in the other direction. They need to get rid of these flags of convenience crap and force vessels that are operating primarily out of America and serving American clientele to be flagged in the US, then both the passengers and crew get the benefits of US law, such as consumer protection and employee protection.

 

 

Wouldn't that effectively put the mass market lines out of business, since at that point only the literal one-per centers would be able to afford to cruise?

 

I'm not disagreeing with the principle, just questioning the reality.

[Sotermarler]

I"m glad they caved so fast to the media pressure. Too bad it took that, rather than the calls from their customers. This is a fail squared: NCL upset their customers and also ended up paying the same amount they would have without upsetting their customers.

 

I agree, I'm glad they finally did the right thing, but I'm disappointed it took media pressure. Another knock for, NCL.

[S.S.Oceanlover]

And they're reimbursing us 1/7 of what we paid. It'll be made in the form of onboard credit, but any unused onboard credit will be credited back to your CC.

 

Wtg and congrats. It is a shame they couldn't done the right thing from the beginning.

 

Enjoy!:)

 

Bill

[S.S.Oceanlover]

Wouldn't that effectively put the mass market lines out of business, since at that point only the literal one-per centers would be able to afford to cruise?

 

I'm not disagreeing with the principle, just questioning the reality.

 

And none of the ships currently sailing the mass market lines would even be able to register their ships in the USA except for POA which got a special dispensation.

 

Bill