Carnival got me!

[gdisney]

So I haven't read all 5 pages of posts, but I have read enough to discover that apparently I was misled.

 

I called "our" PVP (someone who has been calling and leaving me messages) to book a cruise just last week. During that call, I explicitly asked about cancellation fees/ penalties.

 

She did tell me about a $50 fee -- but I am pretty darn sure there was NOTHING said about the remainder being held as a future cruise credit. I even re-stated back to her, so I understand that if I need to cancel I will only lose the $50, right? And she said yes, with nothing about the FCC.

 

 

From the company's perspective, their answer is 'technically' correct. Because, 'technically', you would not lose more than the $50pp, you'd still have the rest as a credit. I actually do agree with you though; I find it somewhat misleading. But they gave you just enough info to keep themselves in the right - and to seal the deal.

[jimbo5544]

From the company's perspective, their answer is 'technically' correct. Because, 'technically', you would not lose more than the $50pp, you'd still have the rest as a credit. I actually do agree with you though; I find it somewhat misleading. But they gave you just enough info to keep themselves in the right - and to seal the deal.

 

 

 

While true, not seen many any other way, the bottom line is make the reservation when you can and are willing to commit. If something happens, you have to be prepared to pay the price.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Tyhunt]

Never book ES without trip insurance with cancel for ant reason.:)

[Computer Nerd]

war and peace was a shorter read! [emoji6]

 

bill

 

sent from my sm-g935v using tapatalk

 

lol :d

[luckybecky]

That's remarkable and worthy of a complaint to the cruise line to take action with regard to the agent's error. What response did you get from the cruise line management about that failure?

 

I have not bothered to complain. We have no reason to think we will need to cancel, and I probably (almost certainly) would still have booked the cruise even if this information had been provided. My reason for posting here is simply to show that even when cruisers DO ask the right questions, and do their due diligence, they still might not get the right answers. So flaming people here is not necessarily helpful.

 

People don't always think to ask all the right questions in the moment, it happens. I'm someone who does the research and likes to be prepared when going into a conversation like that, but there's still times when something slips my mind. The rate is one of the most basic, important parts of the booking. As such, why can't the booking agent relay information about it without being asked?

 

.

 

Well said. This is my point exactly. You should not have to hunt for this information. The cruise line should be very up front about it.

[jakesnana]

I would amend this to You need a good TA.

 

Mine is and I dread the day he retires.

 

Agreed, there is a HUGE difference between a TA and a GOOD TA :)

[sparks1093]

From the company's perspective, their answer is 'technically' correct. Because, 'technically', you would not lose more than the $50pp, you'd still have the rest as a credit. I actually do agree with you though; I find it somewhat misleading. But they gave you just enough info to keep themselves in the right - and to seal the deal.

 

That's why most consumer protection laws are written from the point of view of the consumer and not the business and under those laws the failure to disclose that money will be kept as a credit rather than being refunded could constitute consumer fraud, even though the company was "technically" correct.

[bUU]

The exact wording is as follows:

A non-refundable and non-transferable deposit is required at the time of booking for all guests to secure confirmed accommodations. ... A $50 service fee will be assessed per person for ship and/or sail date changes made prior to the final payment due date.

[Computer Nerd]

That's why most consumer protection laws are written from the point of view of the consumer and not the business and under those laws the failure to disclose that money will be kept as a credit rather than being refunded could constitute consumer fraud, even though the company was "technically" correct.

 

The information is available on the website so therefore the company has disclosed that information. It does not have to be spoon fed to each customer during every phone call.

[broberts]

The information is available on the website so therefore the company has disclosed that information. It does not have to be spoon fed to each customer during every phone call.

 

Rah rah sis boom bah, the cruise line can do no wrong.

 

The terms of Carnival's non refundable deposit fare are not industry standard practice. At the very least they have a duty to warn any prospect of this fact and give the prospect the opportunity to review terms of sale before committing to a purchase.

[sparks1093]

The information is available on the website so therefore the company has disclosed that information. It does not have to be spoon fed to each customer during every phone call.

 

Yes, the information does need to be disclosed to every customer if only through common decency. Every customer cannot be presumed to have an intimate knowledge of every promotion offered by the company (although the CSR's must have said knowledge).

 

That aside though, what I was responding to was the CSR disclosing only part of the terms and conditions to the customer and that is definitely something is frowned upon and the company cannot hide behind the fact that the CSR was "technically" correct if the customer decided to make a legal challenge.

[jimbo5544]

Rah rah sis boom bah, the cruise line can do no wrong.

 

 

 

The terms of Carnival's non refundable deposit fare are not industry standard practice. At the very least they have a duty to warn any prospect of this fact and give the prospect the opportunity to review terms of sale before committing to a purchase.

 

 

 

They do, it is the "process". They met their requirement, and even yours.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[sjcruiser]

Sorry that this happened to you. I use one PVP at Carnival who fully explains the booking and cancellation policy for the promotion or fare I'm using. Most times, I already know it from my research done before I call, and I usually only have to give her the cruise ship, date, cabin number, and promotion I want. I have a group booked on the Magic at the end of the month, and from the beginning, people were starting to cancel and tried to get their full deposit back. Some tried to explain to me that they weren't aware of the ES cancellation policy, which is what most of us booked under. I had to remind them that we were on a three-way call with the PVP that I initiated, and she fully explained the cancellation refund policy to them. Luckily most of them were only out of the $50.00 deposit, which was the deposit promotion running when they booked. Some were out of the $50.00 and put the rest of their deposit on another one of ours cruises taking place before the end of the year.

[Computer Nerd]

Rah rah sis boom bah, the cruise line can do no wrong.

 

The terms of Carnival's non refundable deposit fare are not industry standard practice. At the very least they have a duty to warn any prospect of this fact and give the prospect the opportunity to review terms of sale before committing to a purchase.

 

Ah, so you're not a fan of actual facts and prefer to sling insults towards those that are stating facts. Go figure. :rolleyes:

 

They fulfilled their "duty" by providing written notice on their website. If someone is too lazy to go read the website or ask the simple generic question "are their any fees if I cancel my cruise" before actually booking it, they got what their laziness deserves.

 

BTW, for the record, while Carnival is my most favorite and go to line, I have sailed 5 different cruise lines. Carnival does it best, IMO.

[Computer Nerd]

Yes, the information does need to be disclosed to every customer if only through common decency. Every customer cannot be presumed to have an intimate knowledge of every promotion offered by the company (although the CSR's must have said knowledge).

 

That aside though, what I was responding to was the CSR disclosing only part of the terms and conditions to the customer and that is definitely something is frowned upon and the company cannot hide behind the fact that the CSR was "technically" correct if the customer decided to make a legal challenge.

 

IMO, the information has been disclosed. That being said, there is a responsibility of the customer to know what they are purchasing and can find out by simply asking a question or two.

[sparks1093]

IMO, the information has been disclosed. That being said, there is a responsibility of the customer to know what they are purchasing and can find out by simply asking a question or two.

 

The internet is not universal and having it disclosed there does not mean that it was disclosed in a telephone call (having it disclosed in the email confirmation, along with the right to cancel without penalty within a certain period would likely suffice, but then not everyone has email either).

 

Again, the telephone CSR cannot divulge only half of the terms and conditions (mentioning the $50 pp cancellation fee) without divulging the other half (that the remaining part of the deposit will be held for a future booking) and then be seen by a court as "technically" correct. (I do not know what was or was not said to the OP, I was responding to a specific poster with a specific scenario in mind). Caveat emptor died several decades ago and rightfully so.

[bUU]

Let's stop beating the dead horse. If someone truly believes that they have not received adequate notice of the terms and conditions, because they decided to purchase by telephone and believe that there was nothing about included terms and conditions in the material that the cruise line provided that included the phone number the purchaser called, then let them try to get satisfaction from the courts for their grievance. I'll bet that the courts will find no evidence of wrongdoing by the myriad cruise lines, hotel chains, airlines, destination resorts, movie theaters, rental car companies, etc., that employ the same means of communicating terms and conditions.

 

One thing that folks need to keep in mind: There is a big difference (in the law) between a customer calling a company to buy something, and a company calling a customer (unsolicited) to offer something. It seems to me that a lot of people are confusing the two, thinking that the rules that apply to the latter apply to the former as well. They don't.

Edited August 9, 2017 by bUU

[sparks1093]

You are mistaken, but let's stop beating the dead horse. If someone truly believes that they have not received adequate notice of the terms and conditions, because they decided to purchase by telephone, then let them try to get satisfaction from the courts for their grievance. I'll bet that the courts will find against the perspective you are expressing, and will find no evidence of wrongdoing by the myriad cruise lines, hotel chains, airlines, destination resorts, movie theaters, rental car companies, etc., that employ the same means of communicating terms and conditions.

 

Just because you want something to be "wrong" doesn't mean it is. Society determines that through its government and courts, and determines it not based on the sentiments of just one party to a transaction but rather based on a balancing of considerations.

 

I have read enough consumer fraud case law to know that the consumer in a case such as being discussed (only part of the terms and conditions being disclosed) would have a very good shot at recovering if a case were brought. In one case in Vermont an auto dealer sold a customer a car where the front of the car (let's say a 1985 model) had been welded to the back of a 1984 model. This fact was not disclosed to the customer. The car had nothing mechanically wrong with it and worked fine, but when the customer found out that it wasn't a true 1985 model the customer brought suit under Vermont's consumer fraud law. The case went to the Vermont Supreme court who found that the dealer's failure to disclose the true nature of the car to the customer constituted fraud under Vermont's consumer fraud statutes. So yes, Society does determine this through the government and the courts and from all of the case law that I've read (I brought a consumer fraud case against a company so I had to read the law and case law from numerous states) Society has put the onus of disclosing terms and conditions to the customer firmly on the shoulders of the business, especially if those terms and conditions work against the customer's interest. Again, I don't know what was or was not said to the OP, I am responding only to the poster that said that disclosing only the $50pp penalty was technically correct and that the company could hide behind that technicality.

 

(And yes, Vermont consumer fraud law would cover my transaction with Carnival or with any other business doing business in Vermont, even if they are only doing business via telephone or internet, which is another thing our Supreme Court has made clear, as long as my part of the transaction took place in Vermont.)

[bUU]

I have read enough consumer fraud case law to know that the consumer in a case such as being discussed (only part of the terms and conditions being disclosed) would have a very good shot at recovering if a case were brought.

You've said pretty much that in your earlier comments. The point of my reply is that it is easy to say such things but it has no merit.

 

In one case in Vermont an auto dealer sold a customer a car where the front of the car (let's say a 1985 model) had been welded to the back of a 1984 model. This fact was not disclosed to the customer.

We're not talking about lack of disclosure. We're talking about whether the type of disclosure that myriad cruise lines, hotel chains, airlines, destination resorts, movie theaters, rental car companies, etc., use is legal. It is. You don't think it does, so your burden is to find, among all the case law you claim to have read, a case where the courts held that even though a customer called the company (rather than vice versa) and the material that the cruise line provided that included the phone number the purchaser called mentioned that there were included terms and conditions, the cruise line, hotel chain, airline, destination resort, movie theater, rental car company, etc. was found to have not provided adequate notice.

 

You cannot say, "John's doing something wrong, so that means that what I don't like Paul doing must be wrong." Your example must fit the scenario. Otherwise, you're just bashing the cruise line without any justification.

 

Again: There is a big difference (in the law) between a customer calling a company to buy something, and a company calling a customer (unsolicited) to offer something, and a big difference (in the law) between selling a product and selling a service, and a big difference (in the law) between selling a car or a house and selling other items. You are clearly confusing these things, thinking that the rules that apply to any one of them apply to all of them. That is not the case.

 

Again: Please cite a case like this one - not some random consumer affairs matter.

[sparks1093]

You've said pretty much that in your earlier comments. The point of my reply is that it is easy to say such things but it has no merit.

 

We're not talking about lack of disclosure. We're talking about whether the type of disclosure that myriad cruise lines, hotel chains, airlines, destination resorts, movie theaters, rental car companies, etc., use is legal. It is. You don't think it does, so your burden is to find, among all the case law you claim to have read, a case where the courts held that even though a customer called the company (rather than vice versa) and the material that the cruise line provided that included the phone number the purchaser called mentioned that there were included terms and conditions, the cruise line, hotel chain, airline, destination resort, movie theater, rental car company, etc. was found to have not provided adequate notice.

 

You cannot say, "John's doing something wrong, so that means that what I don't like Paul doing must be wrong." Your example must fit the scenario. Otherwise, you're just bashing the cruise line without any justification.

 

Again: There is a big difference (in the law) between a customer calling a company to buy something, and a company calling a customer (unsolicited) to offer something, and a big difference (in the law) between selling a product and selling a service, and a big difference (in the law) between selling a car or a house and selling other items. You are clearly confusing these things, thinking that the rules that apply to any one of them apply to all of them. That is not the case.

 

Again: Please cite a case like this one - not some random consumer affairs matter.

 

I was talking specifically about a lack of disclosure as stated by a previous poster who said that if the company disclosed the $50pp cancellation on the telephone but failed to disclose that the remainder of the deposit would be held as a future credit that the company would be able to claim that they were technically correct and be shielded. I was not discussing any other scenario. Yes, under the law the devil is in the details but it doesn't matter who initiates a transaction the onus is still on the company to divulge the terms and conditions of the transaction.

[bUU]

Again, you're confusing different things together. Many of the rules you are trying to apply to this situation apply only to unsolicited offers. When you call a company in response to a solicitation, you can hold the company to the representations in the solicitation and they can hold you to the terms and conditions referred to in the solicitation. The company's responsibility is to ensure that the fact that there are terms and conditions (perhaps online) is indicated in all their offers. (So if you want, you can prove your opinion has merit by showing offers from the cruise line that do not indicate that there are included terms and conditions, if you like.) If consumers choose to ignore what the supplier indicates, then that's on the consumer. If consumers choose to get offers second-hand (missing the required disclosures because the "friend" who provided the phone number failed to include all the related material that the supplier provided originally), then that's on the consumer.

 

I'll say it again: Let's stop beating a dead horse with all this presenting of personal preference as if it were law: Please cite a case like this one.

[sparks1093]

Again, you're confusing different things together. Many of the rules you are trying to apply to this situation apply only to unsolicited offers. When you call a company in response to a solicitation, you can hold the company to the representations in the solicitation and they can hold you to the terms and conditions referred to in the solicitation. The company's responsibility is to ensure that the fact that there are terms and conditions (perhaps online) is indicated in all their offers. (So if you want, you can prove your opinion has merit by showing offers from the cruise line that do not indicate that there are included terms and conditions, if you like.) If consumers choose to ignore what the supplier indicates, then that's on the consumer. If consumers choose to get offers second-hand (missing the required disclosures because the "friend" who provided the phone number failed to include all the related material that the supplier provided originally), then that's on the consumer.

 

I'll say it again: Let's stop beating a dead horse with all this presenting of personal preference as if it were law: Please cite a case like this one.

 

I normally agree with you but don't in this case (again, I am just talking about only some of the T&C's being disclosed in a phone call) but that is cool and that is why lawyers exist. But I will say that any company that relies solely on their website for disclosing the T&C's on any offer for inbound telephone calls is playing with fire.

[Cruzaholic41]

I'll say it again: Let's stop beating a dead horse...

 

Oh, the irony in that statement. :rolleyes:

[bUU]

I normally agree with you but don't in this case (again, I am just talking about only some of the T&C's being disclosed in a phone call) but that is cool and that is why lawyers exist. But I will say that any company that relies solely on their website for disclosing the T&C's on any offer for inbound telephone calls is playing with fire.

I respect your right to disagree. I would hope that you will eventually realize that your inability to cite any cases of situations just like this, showing what you are claiming, would inform you of the reality. Please consider it.

[sparks1093]

I respect your right to disagree. I would hope that you will eventually realize that your inability to cite any cases of situations just like this, showing what you are claiming, would inform you of the reality. Please consider it.

 

I would expect that any cases of situations like this would be handled by summary judgment or settlement would probably make it difficult to cite cases (plus I no longer have access to Lexus/Nexus). In any event it doesn't matter since I'm not an aggrieved party:D.