You Won't Believe NCL's New Contract Waivers

[david_sobe]

When cruising resumes, I could see a contract similar to that one in Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory where the print keeps getting smaller and smaller as the contract goes on.  The words get so small that you cant read it anymore but all the kids sign it without knowing they will give up all rights to the chocolate if any violations or candy is removed or given to the competitor at the end.

Maybe the contract will say something like "In the event of a quarantine, you are responsible for your own food or one can of spam per day per cabin and you forfeit all latitudes perks immediately.  You will find your own transportation at your own cost if stranded in port.  You will be charged for every night extra during a quarantine.  You will not pass go and collect $200.  All for your convenience of course.

🤭

Edited April 19, 2020 by david_sobe

[ellasmomanddad]

7 hours ago, npcl said:

After keeping the crew on board, not paying them after their contracts ends, and not getting them home, maybe mutiny is a more likely possibility

An article that got picked up on the wire had an interview with a crew member from Savanna. He has only had fish heads and curry for the past three weeks. I would mutiny at that point.

[njhorseman]

3 hours ago, ellasmomanddad said:

An article that got picked up on the wire had an interview with a crew member from Savanna. He has only had fish heads and curry for the past three weeks. I would mutiny at that point.

Please provide a link to the article.

[ColeThornton]

4 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

Please provide a link to the article.

 

It's the same article where they showed pictures of the employees chained to the oars.

[cruiser4801]

I realize most of us accept terms and conditions sometimes without reading them, such as those from airlines simply because we are not going to forego anecessary airplane travel based on limitations of liability in contract terms.

 

That being said, I think many people including myself will not go on a cruise based on NCL's new contract terms.  You will find them on NCL's web page at the very botton under Guest Ticket Contract.  Here is link:  https://www.ncl.com/sites/default/files/NCL_Guest_Ticket_Contract_041818.pdf.

 

I don't know what NCL was thinking.  A cruise delay or cancellation due to an Act of God or a terrorist attcak is no longer a basis for a refund.  No way I am signing up for an NCL cruise.

[njhorseman]

7 minutes ago, cruiser4801 said:

I realize most of us accept terms and conditions sometimes without reading them, such as those from airlines simply because we are not going to forego anecessary airplane travel based on limitations of liability in contract terms.

 

That being said, I think many people including myself will not go on a cruise based on NCL's new contract terms.  You will find them on NCL's web page at the very botton under Guest Ticket Contract.  Here is link:  https://www.ncl.com/sites/default/files/NCL_Guest_Ticket_Contract_041818.pdf.

 

I don't know what NCL was thinking.  A cruise delay or cancellation due to an Act of God or a terrorist attcak is no longer a basis for a refund.  No way I am signing up for an NCL cruise.

As I've already pointed out, that is the contract effective April, 2018, not anything new, and it doesn't say what you are claiming it does.

Edited April 19, 2020 by njhorseman

[ellasmomanddad]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/cruise-ships-crews-stuck-at-sea-paydays-dwindling-and-searching-for-a-way-home/2020/04/14/c7d9c498-78fb-11ea-a130-df573469f094_story.html

[ellasmomanddad]

20 minutes ago, ColeThornton said:

It's the same article where they showed pictures of the employees chained to the oars.

Didn’t see that pic but sounds about right.

[seaman11]

Not an issue, for me, i am not a sue happy person, if i go on a cruise during this time, i know the risk. 

Edited April 19, 2020 by seaman11

[njhorseman]

1 minute ago, ellasmomanddad said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/cruise-ships-crews-stuck-at-sea-paydays-dwindling-and-searching-for-a-way-home/2020/04/14/c7d9c498-78fb-11ea-a130-df573469f094_story.html

OK...that's someone on the Volendam, a HAL ship, not NCL,  and it doesn't say " He has only had fish heads and curry for the past three weeks" it says "The dining hall’s once-bountiful buffets are sparser and include more of the curries and fried fish heads favored by the Indonesian and Filipino crew members who make up the majority of those left behind".

"More of" is not the same as "only had". 

 

I can empathize with the crew stranded on board, but they're not stranded on board because the cruise lines won't let them disembark. they're stranded because governments won't let them off the ship.

[CruiseMH]

19 hours ago, manorf said:

This won't be in the UK version of NCL t+c's.

If it was - then the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations would render it 'not being worth the paper they're written on'.

 

Same here in Germany. There are some regulations in germany and also the EU which have to be folloed. And one of them is that when the actual holiday(in this case a cruise) differs significantly from what is originally booked the passenger has a right to get a refund. Unavoidable circumstances(such as the current corona stuff) are the only exception.(but the operator(in this case the cruise ine) has to proof that a significant change of the itinary was unavoidable.

 

 

[latserrof]

Many businesses use these "adhesion contracts" knowing that some of the provisions likely would not hold up in court. But such a contract allows a business  to fool the aggrieved customer by pointing to a provision and saying, "Well, you signed this..." and maybe the customer will go away.

 

From Cornell Law School:

 

"Courts carefully scrutinize adhesion contracts and sometimes void certain provisions because of the possibility of unequal bargaining power, unfairness, and unconscionability. Factoring into such decisions include the nature of the agreement, the possibility of unfair surprise, lack of notice, unequal bargaining power, and substantive unfairness. Courts often use the “doctrine of reasonable expectations” as a justification for invalidating parts or all of an adhesion contract: the weaker party will not be held to adhere to contract terms that are beyond what the weaker party would have reasonably expected from the contract, even if what he or she reasonably expected was outside the strict letter of agreement."

 

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by latserrof

[ellasmomanddad]

2 minutes ago, latserrof said:

Many businesses use these "adhesion contracts" knowing that some of the provisions likely would not hold up in court.

Would this depend on the judge? What state the suit was filed? 

[rabidstoat]

Does this mean that if you book a cruise during hurricane season, and a hurricane is hitting the port when you should be embarking, NCL can just cancel the cruise and keep your money?

[njhorseman]

35 minutes ago, rabidstoat said:

Does this mean that if you book a cruise during hurricane season, and a hurricane is hitting the port when you should be embarking, NCL can just cancel the cruise and keep your money?

No it doesn't, and so far there is not one iota of proof that the contract says what the OP claims it does. Any links that have been given are to the contract effective in April 2018, which is neither new, nor  does it have the language claimed by the OP.

[ukbecky]

37 minutes ago, rabidstoat said:

Does this mean that if you book a cruise during hurricane season, and a hurricane is hitting the port when you should be embarking, NCL can just cancel the cruise and keep your money?

 

 

Maybe. And the response on this board would be:

 

"You knew it was hurricane season, you took the chance. Didn't you read the contract?"

[SeaShark]

2 hours ago, ellasmomanddad said:

Penn take a right on the corner and go straight your at the pier.

 

Sorry, but a 2+ mile cab ride is not "next to the port". There is simply no need to say something that isn't true. When you miss the obvious facts, it makes me doubt the rest. YMMV.

[SeaShark]

8 minutes ago, ellasmomanddad said:

Finally found it.. everything is there that the op said. The link is already in the thread. Your right saying 2018 your wrong that there is no iota of proof you just didn’t read.

6. Vessel and Voyage:
(a) Risk of Travel:
 

 

 

I don't understand...if he is "right saying 2018", then the OP is, by definition, wrong. The OP stated these changes went in JUST THIS MONTH...not back in 2018.

 

The whole point of the thread is RECENT CHANGES to the contract. If the contract is from 2018, then there simply are no recent changes.

[ltish23]

Not sure where people are getting the information that crew is not getting fed properly. I have friends on the Encore right now  and they are definately getting fed regular food and are still getting paid.

[ray98]

I am not sure anyone on this board can tell the truth anymore. 

 

Claiming a 2018 contract is new....

Misrepresenting what it says....

Claiming crew members have been fed fish heads for 3 weeks....

 

[Bluewake]

4 hours ago, njhorseman said:

No it doesn't, and so far there is not one iota of proof that the contract says what the OP claims it does. Any links that have been given are to the contract effective in April 2018, which is neither new, nor  does it have the language claimed by the OP.

 

 

At the bottom of the NCL website, there are links to a variety of cruiseline related sites and matters.  One of those is labeled "Guest Ticket Contract".    https://www.ncl.com/sites/default/files/NCL_Guest_Ticket_Contract_041818.pdf

 

 The  document at that link is titled "NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE Guest Ticket Contract".  As you noted, the date of that version is April 2018 so it does not appear to be new.  I've pasted section 6.   The last sentence in that section seems to be to what the OP was seeking to draw CC readers' attention.

 

6. Vessel and Voyage: (a) Risk of Travel: The Guest admits and acknowledges that travel by ocean-going vessel occasionally presents risks and circumstances that may be beyond the ability of the Carrier to reasonably control or mitigate. The Guest's understanding includes all risks of travel, transportation, and handling of Guests and baggage. Except as provided in paragraph 6(f), the Guest therefore assumes the risk of and releases the Carrier from any injury, loss, or damage whatsoever arising from, caused by, or in the judgment of the Carrier or Master rendered necessary or advisable by reason of: any act of God or public enemies; force majeure; arrest; restraints of governments or their departments or under color of law; piracy; war; revolution; extortion; terrorist actions or threats; hijacking; bombing; threatened or actual rebellion, insurrection, or civil strife; fire, explosion, collision, stranding or grounding; weather conditions; docking or 4/2018 anchoring difficulty; congestion; perils of the sea, rivers, canals, locks or other waters; perils of navigation of any kind; lack of water or passageway in canals; theft; accident to or from machinery, boilers, or latent defects (even though existing at embarkation or commencement of voyages); barratry; desertion or revolt of the crew; seizure of ship by legal process; strike, lockout or labor disturbance (regardless whether such strike, lockout or labor disturbance results from a dispute between the Carrier and its employees or any other parties); or from losses of any kind beyond the Carrier's control. Under any such circumstances the voyage may be altered, shortened, lengthened, or cancelled in whole or part without liability to the Carrier for a refund or otherwise.

 

Is it your opinion that this section does or does not release NCL from any responsibility to issue a refund if the ship is unable to sail for a reason NCL deems to be beyond it's control such as a Force Majeure?  To me, it seems to read that NCL would not have to issue a refund to passengers in the event NCL was unable to sail due to all of the listed reasons.  However, I may not be understanding it correctly.  Thanks for clarifying.

Edited April 19, 2020 by Bluewake

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, Bluewake said:

 

 

At the bottom of the NCL website, there are links to a variety of cruiseline related sites and matters.  One of those is labeled "Guest Ticket Contract".    https://www.ncl.com/sites/default/files/NCL_Guest_Ticket_Contract_041818.pdf

 

 The  document at that link is titled "NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE Guest Ticket Contract".  As you noted, the date of that version is April 2018 so it does not appear to be new.  I've pasted section 6.   The last sentence in that section seems to be to what the OP was seeking to draw CC readers' attention.

 

6. Vessel and Voyage: (a) Risk of Travel: The Guest admits and acknowledges that travel by ocean-going vessel occasionally presents risks and circumstances that may be beyond the ability of the Carrier to reasonably control or mitigate. The Guest's understanding includes all risks of travel, transportation, and handling of Guests and baggage. Except as provided in paragraph 6(f), the Guest therefore assumes the risk of and releases the Carrier from any injury, loss, or damage whatsoever arising from, caused by, or in the judgment of the Carrier or Master rendered necessary or advisable by reason of: any act of God or public enemies; force majeure; arrest; restraints of governments or their departments or under color of law; piracy; war; revolution; extortion; terrorist actions or threats; hijacking; bombing; threatened or actual rebellion, insurrection, or civil strife; fire, explosion, collision, stranding or grounding; weather conditions; docking or 4/2018 anchoring difficulty; congestion; perils of the sea, rivers, canals, locks or other waters; perils of navigation of any kind; lack of water or passageway in canals; theft; accident to or from machinery, boilers, or latent defects (even though existing at embarkation or commencement of voyages); barratry; desertion or revolt of the crew; seizure of ship by legal process; strike, lockout or labor disturbance (regardless whether such strike, lockout or labor disturbance results from a dispute between the Carrier and its employees or any other parties); or from losses of any kind beyond the Carrier's control. Under any such circumstances the voyage may be altered, shortened, lengthened, or cancelled in whole or part without liability to the Carrier for a refund or otherwise.

 

Is it your opinion that this section does or does not release NCL from any responsibility to issue a refund if the ship is unable to sail for a reason NCL deems to be beyond it's control such as a Force Majeure?  To me, it seems to read that NCL would not have to issue a refund to passengers in the event NCL was unable to sail due to all of the listed reasons.  However, I may not be understanding it correctly.  Thanks for clarifying.

The reason I said what I did is because the OP claimed this was a new contract, with changes made because of the pandemic. That is false. The contract has been in use for 2 years. When I said that I didn't see the wording I should have been clearer and said that I  didn't see any wording that had changed...because it hasn't. I have no idea where the OP got the wording at the top of the post that he claimed was changed in April 2020. Perhaps it was a contract that predated the April 2018 edition.

 

 Whether this clause actually releases NCL from liability due to the stated events can only be determined in the courts, but I do know that it's not all that unusual for courts to void certain provisions of adhesion contracts:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_(contract_of_adhesion)

 

"Courts carefully scrutinize adhesion contracts and sometimes void certain provisions because of the possibility of unequal bargaining power, unfairness, and unconscionability. Factoring into such decisions include the nature of the agreement, the possibility of unfair surprise, lack of notice, unequal bargaining power, and substantive unfairness. Courts often use the “doctrine of reasonable expectations” as a justification for invalidating parts or all of an adhesion contract: the weaker party will not be held to adhere to contract terms that are beyond what the weaker party would have reasonably expected from the contract, even if what he or she reasonably expected was outside the strict letter of agreement."

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by njhorseman

[Bluewake]

55 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

The reason I said what I did is because the OP claimed this was a new contract, with changes made because of the pandemic. That is false. The contract has been in use for 2 years. When I said that I didn't see the wording I should have been clearer and said that I  didn't see any wording that had changed...because it hasn't. I have no idea where the OP got the wording at the top of the post that he claimed was changed in April 2020. Perhaps it was a contract that predated the April 2018 edition.

 

 Whether this clause actually releases NCL from liability due to the stated events can only be determined in the courts, but I do know that it's not all that unusual for courts to void certain provisions of adhesion contracts:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_(contract_of_adhesion)

 

"Courts carefully scrutinize adhesion contracts and sometimes void certain provisions because of the possibility of unequal bargaining power, unfairness, and unconscionability. Factoring into such decisions include the nature of the agreement, the possibility of unfair surprise, lack of notice, unequal bargaining power, and substantive unfairness. Courts often use the “doctrine of reasonable expectations” as a justification for invalidating parts or all of an adhesion contract: the weaker party will not be held to adhere to contract terms that are beyond what the weaker party would have reasonably expected from the contract, even if what he or she reasonably expected was outside the strict letter of agreement."

 

 

 

Makes sense.  Thanks for expanding.

[sanger727]

On 4/18/2020 at 11:27 PM, Travelling2Some said:

Very true.  But I worry that (like NCL's new contract terms) insurance policies may either become so restrictive that they are either hardly worth buying or prohibitively expensive as a reaction to this historic event.  We are a retired couple and our medical insurance only covers us in the USA.  I would hate to have to restrict myself to domestic travel.

 

You can get medical/evacuation only policies outside of full comprehensive trip insurance and they are quite a bit cheaper. If you got priced out of comprehensive trip insurance, I doubt very much that the medical only policies would be prohibitively expensive. We use geo blue, even for seniors it's only dollars a day. 

[njhorseman]

26 minutes ago, sanger727 said:

 

You can get medical/evacuation only policies outside of full comprehensive trip insurance and they are quite a bit cheaper. If you got priced out of comprehensive trip insurance, I doubt very much that the medical only policies would be prohibitively expensive. We use geo blue, even for seniors it's only dollars a day.

Once again...this isn't new contract language, it's been in place for two years, so the poster is expressing concern about a problem that doesn't exist.