UPDATE: RCI CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT - must read for all RCI members [Includes Results]

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carolinian said:

Thank you, Susan! You are a true timeshare hero!

One question. I saw a discovery schedule some time ago. Is it correct that no discovery on the merits of the case had even been started at the time this ''settlement'' was agreed to, and that only discovery on the issue of class certification had been done? It is absolutely incredible if that is so that any attorney would agree to a settlement without doing that discovery.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Carolinian!

I would think that some discovery had to have been made, but I have not [yet] been granted access to the filings, so I only know what I hear.

I did hear verbally from some of the Plaintiffs' attorneys that discovery was limited by another judge very early on in the case. That would have had a serious impact on the eventual outcome. I asked why, and was pretty much shrugged off. (Sort of a "s**t happens" answer.) I could not say how hard the Plaintiffs' attorneys fought for discovery. They could have fought really hard, but then too, discovery can be an expensive process, and they might not have been eager to take on the expense. Or they might have spent vast amounts of money already. I just couldn't say.

It would be extraordinary, but I'm guessing not completely impossible (as opposed to "partially impossible," I suppose -- don't you love how we lawyers make up terms?) for this judge to allow discovery at this stage of the proceedings. For him to allow it, though, he would have to have a really good reason.

To me, it still comes down to the fact that RCI insists it has the right to rent out weeks deposited for exchange (not just the ones used for "Points," partners or cruises). I just don't see where RCI can grant itself that right especially when the RCI representatives who deal with the public deny that they do it. I'd love to see RCI be forced to disclose that they ARE doing it, and how often, and how much money they're making on it. (It's not like they're reducing exchange, membership and guest certificate fees because they're making money on rentals!)

I honestly do not understand why the Plaintiffs' attorneys have conceded that RCI has the right to rent out deposited weeks unless they already brought the issue to the judge, and the judge ruled that the contract stands. And I don't see that issue as lost yet. And, frankly, from the judge's demeanor in the courtroom, I really don't think he ruled that way. RCI's attorney would have said so, the Plaintiffs' attorneys would have said, and I think the judge would have said so. Judges have the right to rule that a contract term is unconscionable and unenforceable. This judge didn't dismiss my arguments, or say anything that would indicate to me that he would rule that way. On the contrary, he told the Plaintiffs' attorneys flat out that I had done most of their work for them, and invited them to respond. (They didn't have much of a response.)

Anyhow, I have a request: I have noticed that the wording in the Terms and Conditions of the 2008 catalog differs from the wording in the 2006 catalog, regarding relinquishment of rights. Does anyone have any older catalogs hanging around? If RCI has been gradually changing the terms, it could be very important at some point. (I could probably request the Terms and Conditions from Plaintiffs' local counsel -- he promised me he'd bring the 2000 version to me in court, but he didn't. But I'd rather not rely on his good faith, if I don't have to.)

My letter to the judge...and I was being NICE

Dear Honorable Sir or Madam,

We would like to file an objection to the settlement proposed in the action against RCI LLC. The reasons for our objection are as follows:

1. The settlement amount is insufficient to dissuade the defendant from committing future actions similar to those alleged in the claim. The defendant may have profited 100’s if not 1000’s of dollars from the rental of the deposited properties per resort timeshare owner over the period of time this action covers, but the settlement only amounts to approximately $20 per claimant. We propose a settlement of $100 per claimant per year (see #2).

2. The settlement offers the same amount of compensation per claimant, not withstanding the fact that some claimants may have been RCI Weeks members for ¬years while others may have only been RCI Weeks members for days. This is blatantly unfair to longer term members who are a part of this class and who may have been affected to a greater extent by the defendant’s actions. We suggest compensation be based on the number of full or part years of membership, rather than a one-size-fits-all standard of compensation.

While we do not want to see the amount awarded lead to RCI’s insolvency, we would like to ensure that claimants are properly compensated. We trust that the court will decide on a fair and equitable settlement in the event that this suit is successful. Thank you very much for your consideration.


----------------------------

Not only was I being too nice, I should have paid better attention to the 2-year limit. I don't agree with it being a temporary fix, nor do I agree with them only holding deposited weeks for 31 days before it is up for grabs for rental. I have been trying to find a decent exchange for Australia and have come up with only so-so places for exchange. When I try to look up one of the Gold Crown resorts, there is nothing available.

I would like to know how they classify resorts, because when we bought (3 years ago), ours was a Gold Crown, and now it is nothing (plain). I guess that limits our "trading power".

Today I looked for an exchange for Apr 2010 in the Orlando Fl area . I have been looking for the last few months. There were only a few openings. There was one at Orange Lakes CC, They had an opening on the date I needed, but not for exchange, The going rate was $1200. I'm looking at not renewing my rci membership next year. My wife and I really enjoy exchanging, but we don't enjoy getting only the rci scraps. I think if enough of us vacation at our home resorts instead of depositing our weeks, rci might get the message. We pay our maint fees, our rci dues, and the fee to exchange. Who is the winner here.

When pigs fly as they say, but if you find out this is true, choking, I know some people at my resort that would be very interested in this option!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Susan2 said:

...I was told by one fellow objector that he was told by a person who shall remain nameless that "RCI has to rent out deposited weeks to cover their expenses of paying maintenance fees for which RCI is liable when a member deposits a week but doesn't pay the maintenance fees." (Or words to that effect.) What a scream! Like RCI would do that!! ....!

Click to expand...

Weeks class action settlement

Boy, am I ever out of the loop! I scrolled down to the bottom of the page on RCI and read about this. I guess I missed the boat because I didn't put a claim in.

Susan,

I once saw a discovery schedule that said that the limitation on the first round of discovery was that it was restricted to the issue of class certification. It would appear that this was all of the discovery that was ever done. If there was no discovery at all on the merits of the claim, then the plaintiffs attorneys of record are not representing plaintiffs interest when they jump on a settlement without fully exploring the merits of the case.

Some discovery methods are indeed expensive, but others less so. If funds are limited, then using a written set of interrogatories, written requests for production of documents, and written requests for adminissions saves money over a deposition.

If the attorneys of record are cagey about discovery, that seems to be indicative that they did not fullfill their duties to their clients in this area.

I think another issue of how diligently they represented their ''clients'' is whether they attempted to make use of RCI whistleblowers who offered to use their access to RCI computers to provide information. There were two or three such offers on www.timesharetalk.co.uk, for instance. The main whistleblower on TUG, Bootleg, never made that offer, but if I had been in the shoes of the attorneys of record, I would have at least tried to see if he would provide the smoking gun that he posted here that he was aware of.

I would also suggest contacting the Timeshare Consumers Association in the UK to ask that they help get some objections in from members there, or perhaps encourage them to file suit in the UK. They have been involved with timeshare litigation before, having brought down John ''Goldfinger'' Palmer in the UK / Canary Islands and brought in a law firm to start work on a class action (or whatever they call it there) on Sunterra, one of the factors that helped Sunterra decide to exit the timeshare business.

Susan2 said:

Thanks, Carolinian!

I would think that some discovery had to have been made, but I have not [yet] been granted access to the filings, so I only know what I hear.

I did hear verbally from some of the Plaintiffs' attorneys that discovery was limited by another judge very early on in the case. That would have had a serious impact on the eventual outcome. I asked why, and was pretty much shrugged off. (Sort of a "s**t happens" answer.) I could not say how hard the Plaintiffs' attorneys fought for discovery. They could have fought really hard, but then too, discovery can be an expensive process, and they might not have been eager to take on the expense. Or they might have spent vast amounts of money already. I just couldn't say.

It would be extraordinary, but I'm guessing not completely impossible (as opposed to "partially impossible," I suppose -- don't you love how we lawyers make up terms?) for this judge to allow discovery at this stage of the proceedings. For him to allow it, though, he would have to have a really good reason.

To me, it still comes down to the fact that RCI insists it has the right to rent out weeks deposited for exchange (not just the ones used for "Points," partners or cruises). I just don't see where RCI can grant itself that right especially when the RCI representatives who deal with the public deny that they do it. I'd love to see RCI be forced to disclose that they ARE doing it, and how often, and how much money they're making on it. (It's not like they're reducing exchange, membership and guest certificate fees because they're making money on rentals!)

I honestly do not understand why the Plaintiffs' attorneys have conceded that RCI has the right to rent out deposited weeks unless they already brought the issue to the judge, and the judge ruled that the contract stands. And I don't see that issue as lost yet. And, frankly, from the judge's demeanor in the courtroom, I really don't think he ruled that way. RCI's attorney would have said so, the Plaintiffs' attorneys would have said, and I think the judge would have said so. Judges have the right to rule that a contract term is unconscionable and unenforceable. This judge didn't dismiss my arguments, or say anything that would indicate to me that he would rule that way. On the contrary, he told the Plaintiffs' attorneys flat out that I had done most of their work for them, and invited them to respond. (They didn't have much of a response.)

Anyhow, I have a request: I have noticed that the wording in the Terms and Conditions of the 2008 catalog differs from the wording in the 2006 catalog, regarding relinquishment of rights. Does anyone have any older catalogs hanging around? If RCI has been gradually changing the terms, it could be very important at some point. (I could probably request the Terms and Conditions from Plaintiffs' local counsel -- he promised me he'd bring the 2000 version to me in court, but he didn't. But I'd rather not rely on his good faith, if I don't have to.)

Click to expand...

JPD said:

Today I looked for an exchange for Apr 2010 in the Orlando Fl area . I have been looking for the last few months. There were only a few openings. There was one at Orange Lakes CC, They had an opening on the date I needed, but not for exchange, The going rate was $1200. I'm looking at not renewing my rci membership next year. My wife and I really enjoy exchanging, but we don't enjoy getting only the rci scraps. I think if enough of us vacation at our home resorts instead of depositing our weeks, rci might get the message. We pay our maint fees, our rci dues, and the fee to exchange. Who is the winner here.

Click to expand...

You might see if one of the independent exchange companies can find you a week:

www.daelive.com
www.platinuminterchange.com
www.tradingplaces.com
www.htse.net
www.sfx-resorts.com

Susan2 said:

Anyhow, I have a request: I have noticed that the wording in the Terms and Conditions of the 2008 catalog differs from the wording in the 2006 catalog, regarding relinquishment of rights. Does anyone have any older catalogs hanging around? If RCI has been gradually changing the terms, it could be very important at some point. (I could probably request the Terms and Conditions from Plaintiffs' local counsel -- he promised me he'd bring the 2000 version to me in court, but he didn't.

Click to expand...

Susan, and others,

I have a 2002-2003 'Disclosure Guide' which I got shortly after joining RCI in '02. I've skimmed through it late tonight, but cannot find any reference to renting. Anyone else have this copy and can find any reference?

They do, however, warn up front that 'your decision to purchase vacation time should be based primarily on the use, benefit and enjoyment of your vacation time at the affiliated resort and not upon the anticipated benefits of the RCI...' As if we haven't heard this over and over, LOL. Too bad this isn't a required spew of the sales presentation.

Skimming through again, I found on page 4: "An RCI weeks Member relinquishes all rights to the use of his/her Vacation Time when it is deposited into the RCI Spacebank." But that's all I've found so far. 'Relinquishes rights to use' is quite different from acknowledges the unit may be rented.

muranojo said:

Skimming through again, I found on page 4: "An RCI weeks Member relinquishes all rights to the use of his/her Vacation Time when it is deposited into the RCI Spacebank." But that's all I've found so far. 'Relinquishes rights to use' is quite different from acknowledges the unit may be rented.

Click to expand...

I don't know, Jo. Personally, I think there is a big difference between "relinquishes all rights to use" and "relinquishes all rights to use except the right to rent".

It seems to me that if I have a right to rent a timeshare, and I relinquish all of my rights to that unit, I would certainly be relinquishing my right to rent the unit. Because otherwise I wouldn't be relinquishing all rights, would I??

For what it is worth, I have some old directories, and the appropriate paragraphs are shown below:

RCI Directory - 1991

Terms and Conditions of RCI Membership (page 24)

10. By depositing Vacation Time in the RCI SPACEBANK Pool, an RCI Member relinquishes all rights to use that Vacation Time. Deposited Vacation Time ay be used by RCI to conduct exchanges, inspection visits, promotions and other purposes at RCI's discretion. Some Vacation Time deposited into the RCI SPACEBANK Pool may be rented by RCI through its travel division, Endless Vacation Travel ("EVT"). EVT replaces Vacation Time withdrawn from the RCI SPACEBANK Pool with inventory purchased from participating resort developers. Because RCI members relinquish the right to use Vacation Time deposited into the RCI SPACEBANK Pool, they do not receive the proceeds of rentals arranged by EVT.

RCI Directory - 1993

Terms and Conditions of RCI Membership (page 509)

9. By depositing Vacation Time in the RCI SPACEBANK Pool, an RCI Member relinquishes all rights to use that Vacation Time. Deposited Vacation Time ay be used by RCI to conduct exchanges, inspection visits, promotions and other purposes at RCI's discretion.

RCI Directory - 1997

Terms and Conditions of RCI Membership (page 578)

6. Depositing Vacation Ownership and Requesting an Exchange

3) By depositing Vacation Ownership in the RCI SPACEBANK Pool, you relinquish all rights to use that Vacation Ownership and agree that such deposited Vacation Ownership may be used by RCI to conduct exchanges, inspection visits, promotions and for other purposes at RCI's discretion.

RCI Directory - 2001

Terms and Conditions of RCI Membership (page 570)

6. Depositing Vacation Ownership and Requesting An Exchange

C) By depositing Vacation Ownership in the RCI SPACEBANK Pool, you relinquish all rights to use that Vacation Ownership and agree that such deposited Vacation Ownership may be used by RCI to conduct exchanges, inspection visits, promotions and for other purposes at RCI's discretion. RCI reserves the right to charge and collect an additional fee for a Member who deposits their Vacation Ownership outside the published guidelines.

RCI Directory - 2003

Terms and Conditions of RCI Membership (page 473)

6. Depositing Vacation Ownership and Requesting an Exchange

C) By depositing Vacation Ownership in the RCI SPACEBANK Pool, you relinquish all rights to use that Vacation Ownership and agree that such deposited Vacation Ownership may be used by RCI to conduct exchanges, inspection visits, promotions and for other purposes at RCI's discretion.

RCI Directory - 2006

Terms and Conditions of RCI Weeks Subscribing Membership (page 499)

6. Depositing Vacation Ownership and Requesting an Exchange

(c) By depositing Vacation Ownership with RCI, you relinquish all rights to use that Vacation Ownership and agree that such deposited Vacation Ownership may be used by RCI to conduct exchanges, inspection visits, promotions, rentals, and for other purposes at RCI's discretion.

RCI Directory - 2008

Terms and Conditions of RCI Weeks Subscribing Membership (page 396)

23.0 Assignment of Rights
By Depositing Vacation Ownership with RCI, each Member relinquishes all rights to use that Vacation Ownership and agrees that such Deposited Vacation Ownership may be used by RCI to satisfy Exchange Requests, for inspection visits, promotions, rental, sale, marketing and for other purposes at RCI's discretion, including use in other exchange or accomodation programs.

When The Horse Is Dead, It Is Advisable To Dismount.

"Other purposes at RCI's discretion" pretty much covers it, no ?

Case closed.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

The rentals are long before points or the Internet came along

rod said:

RCI Directory - 1991

Terms and Conditions of RCI Membership (page 24)

10. By depositing Vacation Time in the RCI SPACEBANK Pool, an RCI Member relinquishes all rights to use that Vacation Time. Deposited Vacation Time ay be used by RCI to conduct exchanges, inspection visits, promotions and other purposes at RCI's discretion. Some Vacation Time deposited into the RCI SPACEBANK Pool may be rented by RCI through its travel division, Endless Vacation Travel ("EVT"). EVT replaces Vacation Time withdrawn from the RCI SPACEBANK Pool with inventory purchased from participating resort developers. Because RCI members relinquish the right to use Vacation Time deposited into the RCI SPACEBANK Pool, they do not receive the proceeds of rentals arranged by EVT.

RCI Directory - 1993

Click to expand...

So way back in what still may have been deemed the "Golden Years" of RCI Weeks trades (predates our use by 2 years) the agreement specifically states that RCI can rent the deposits. It actually disappears for awhile after that (but as Alan notes the "at RCI Discretion" pretty much says it all). So the cry's that Points or a sudden, recent change in direction by RCI regarding renting rings extremely hollow. It does back up the oft stated view that the rise of the Internet and the subsequent ability to find all the rental offers easily from whatever source is the true reason behind the so-called shift toward renting timeshares vs week for week exchange. The golden age wasn't as gilded as some would have you believe as has also often been pointed out. TUG itself was born out of frustration with the exchange companies in that period. Memories tend to smooth over the problems after awhile.

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

timeos2 said:

So way back in what still may have been deemed the "Golden Years" of RCI Weeks trades (predates our use by 2 years) the agreement specifically states that RCI can rent the deposits. It actually disappears for awhile after that (but as Alan notes the "at RCI Discretion" pretty much says it all). So the cry's that Points or a sudden, recent change in direction by RCI regarding renting rings extremely hollow. It does back up the oft stated view that the rise of the Internet and the subsequent ability to find all the rental offers easily from whatever source is the true reason behind the so-called shift toward renting timeshares vs week for week exchange. The golden age wasn't as gilded as some would have you believe as has also often been pointed out. TUG itself was born out of frustration with the exchange companies in that period. Memories tend to smooth over the problems after awhile.

Click to expand...

I disagree strongly. There is a HUGE difference between renting "excess inventory," defined as weeks unlikely to be requested as exchanges for $99 per week, and taking the best, most desirable weeks and renting them to make hundreds of dollars -- OR taking them out of the RCI exchange spacebank and putting them in another program entirely.

Also, bear in mind that the Vacation Guides CONSISTENTLY DENY that RCI takes weeks deposited for exchange and rents them out or transfers them to another spacebank.

It's not a matter of memory "smoothing over the problems after a while," and I think it's disrepectful to claim so. We see what we see, and we're not stupid! Many of us who have noticed the drying up of the good inventory can cite facts and figures. Can you?

Shux, I Should Have Gone To Law School. (Like I Could Ever Get In.)

Susan2 said:

I disagree strongly. There is a HUGE difference between renting "excess inventory," defined as weeks unlikely to be requested as exchanges for $99 per week, and taking the best, most desirable weeks and renting them to make hundreds of dollars -- OR taking them out of the RCI exchange spacebank and putting them in another program entirely.

Click to expand...

You don't think that "other purposes at RCI's discretion" covers it ?

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carolinian said:

Susan,

I once saw a discovery schedule that said that the limitation on the first round of discovery was that it was restricted to the issue of class certification. It would appear that this was all of the discovery that was ever done. If there was no discovery at all on the merits of the claim, then the plaintiffs attorneys of record are not representing plaintiffs interest when they jump on a settlement without fully exploring the merits of the case.

Some discovery methods are indeed expensive, but others less so. If funds are limited, then using a written set of interrogatories, written requests for production of documents, and written requests for adminissions saves money over a deposition.

If the attorneys of record are cagey about discovery, that seems to be indicative that they did not fullfill their duties to their clients in this area.

I think another issue of how diligently they represented their ''clients'' is whether they attempted to make use of RCI whistleblowers who offered to use their access to RCI computers to provide information. There were two or three such offers on www.timesharetalk.co.uk, for instance. The main whistleblower on TUG, Bootleg, never made that offer, but if I had been in the shoes of the attorneys of record, I would have at least tried to see if he would provide the smoking gun that he posted here that he was aware of.

I would also suggest contacting the Timeshare Consumers Association in the UK to ask that they help get some objections in from members there, or perhaps encourage them to file suit in the UK. They have been involved with timeshare litigation before, having brought down John ''Goldfinger'' Palmer in the UK / Canary Islands and brought in a law firm to start work on a class action (or whatever they call it there) on Sunterra, one of the factors that helped Sunterra decide to exit the timeshare business.

Click to expand...

First of all, let me say I absolutely agree with your comment on discovery. I just don't want to make claims that I can't support. If you are right, then it absolutely does seem that more should have been done.

Second, I am (and have been) in contact with Jay in the UK regarding the suit over there. He tells me that the UK has a different system, with a "representative plaintiff," rather than a "class action." That means that the expenses must be paid up front, but that a "funder" can put up the expenses and then get reimbursed if the case is won. The last I heard, they were meeting with a potential "funder," and Jay said he'd let me know how that went. I haven't heard anything in almost a week, so hopefully he'll have a good answer soon.

Even this ''excess'' issue is a slippery slope. They can manipulate the trading power to make anything they want ''excess''.

There are simply two sides to this issue, the consumers side, and the company can do no wrong side. It is easy to tell which side particularly posters line up on!

And something being buried in the fine print does not make it legal or right. The fine print may be determined to itself be the ''unfair or deceptive practice in or affecting commerce'' (to quote the NC law) which is then statutorily declared ''unlawful''. As was discussed at length on the Street Talk site, the RCI contract may well itself be a contract of adhesion and unenforcible as to some of these pro-company terms.

Susan, Alan thinks he gets great trades when he finds something at the last minute into one of the overbuilt areas.

Susan2 said:

I disagree strongly. There is a HUGE difference between renting "excess inventory," defined as weeks unlikely to be requested as exchanges for $99 per week, and taking the best, most desirable weeks and renting them to make hundreds of dollars -- OR taking them out of the RCI exchange spacebank and putting them in another program entirely.

Also, bear in mind that the Vacation Guides CONSISTENTLY DENY that RCI takes weeks deposited for exchange and rents them out or transfers them to another spacebank.

It's not a matter of memory "smoothing over the problems after a while," and I think it's disrepectful to claim so. We see what we see, and we're not stupid! Many of us who have noticed the drying up of the good inventory can cite facts and figures. Can you?

Click to expand...

There is a HUGE difference between renting "excess inventory," defined as weeks unlikely to be requested as exchanges for $99 per week, and taking the best, most desirable weeks and renting them to make hundreds of dollars -- OR taking them out of the RCI exchange spacebank and putting them in another program entirely.

Click to expand...

Those are different, sure. But, by my reading of the subscriber agreement, both are allowed---and apparently have been since at least 1991.

This is really simple. RCI is going to to what it can, as a business, to be as profitable as possible. If they can also deliver me value for what I pay them and deposit, I am happy to make use of their services. If they can't deliver that value to me (or someone delivers better value) then I won't. So far, RCI is still delivering value, so I'm still happy to use them.

Ultimately, that can't last forever---the only way for everyone to get value is for everyone to get a week worth more than the week they put in (to account for the exchange fee). In a barter system, worth is relative to perspective, and so it would be possible for both parties in a trade to "win". But, as the rental market becomes more effiicient and more transparent, there is increasingly a standard objective value for every week---as that happens, it becomes clear that one party in a trade is losing. That person isn't likely to deposit again, withdrawing a high-value week from the system.

But, until that day comes, I'm happy to continue to extract some value from the system. Would I prefer it if they made less money and delivered me more value? Sure! Who wouldn't? But I honestly do not understand this idea that RCI owes it to me to make less money and deliver me more value.

Edited to add:

There are simply two sides to this issue, the consumers side, and the company can do no wrong side.

Click to expand...

This over-simplifies things. Or, to put it better, attributes "morality" to a business, when no such thing ever really exists. Business is simply buisness---there is no "right" or "wrong". It's either profitable or not. The trick for a company is to make money while still somehow delivering value to the people to whom it sells its services. If the company can't do that, it fails---either becuase it dellivers value but makes no profit, or it would be profitable but customers get no value, and so do not patronize it.

You can wish that a company would do what you want it to do so that you get more value. But, that's not going to happen unless that action also pads the company's bottom line. No company ever has your best interests at heart---only its own.

There You Go Again.

Carolinian said:

There are simply two sides to this issue, the consumers side, and the company can do no wrong side.

Click to expand...

Citing the broad language in the agreement ("...other purposes at RCI's discretion...") is not exactly the same as saying that RCI can do no wrong, now is it ?

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

bnoble said:

This over-simplifies things. Or, to put it better, attributes "morality" to a business, when no such thing ever really exists. Business is simply buisness---there is no "right" or "wrong". It's either profitable or not. The trick for a company is to make money while still somehow delivering value to the people to whom it sells its services. If the company can't do that, it fails---either becuase it dellivers value but makes no profit, or it would be profitable but customers get no value, and so do not patronize it.

You can wish that a company would do what you want it to do so that you get more value. But, that's not going to happen unless that action also pads the company's bottom line. No company ever has your best interests at heart---only its own.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and Al Capone's business was VERY profitable!

The fact is that there are other standards for business. Every state has a consumer protection law, most of which are very broad. It is the New Jersey consumer protection law that this lawsuit is brought under. The North Carolina version provides ''an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce is unlawful'' It doesn't make the slightest difference whether or not it is in the T&C. The test is whether it is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive''. Something buried in the T&C that is contrary to what the company projects to its customers can very easily be the basis for something that is determined to be unfair or deceptive. RCI's practices meet both tests, when only one is required, and they deserve to be hammered until they restore honesty to their business practices.

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AwayWeGo said:

"Other purposes at RCI's discretion" pretty much covers it, no ?

Case closed.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

Click to expand...

Actually, not necessarily "case closed." Anyone can put whatever they want in a contract, but that doesn's mean it is enforceable. Any contract clause that is found by the court to be unconscionable, for example, can get thrown out by the judge.

Also the Attorney General can (and do) look into contracts and when they find something that isn't right, they often take action.

IMO, There is more here than just the "four corners of the contract."

Al Capone's business was VERY profitable!

Click to expand...

Not only that, but people were very happy to patronize it. They got a lot of (ahem) value.

Of course there are limits to what a company can do---a company must follow the law, and act in a straightfoward manner. You can claim that renting deposits is not straightforward, except that anyone who actually bothers to read the agreement is fully aware of it.

If you are so sure that it is deceptive, perhaps you should sue under North Carolina law. It certainly doesn't look deceptive to me---the language in the current agreement is pretty plain. What's more, continuing to whinge about it here---while the next minute praising them for the good rental deals you see there---is doing no one any good at all.

Edited to add:

Any contract clause that is found by the court to be unconscionable, for example, can get thrown out by the judge.

Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, such clauses are generally found to be unenforceable because they violate the law in some way---for example, even if you sign a timeshare sales contract that waives your recission period in a state in which mandates one, you still have that recission period.

If you can find me any state or federal statute that says units deposited for exchange can only be obtained in exchange, I'll line right up behind you to say that the current Subscriber Agreement does not actually allow RCI to rent deposits.

AwayWeGo said:

Citing the broad language in the agreement ("...other purposes at RCI's discretion...") is not exactly the same as saying that RCI can do no wrong, now is it ?

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

Click to expand...

Yes, blindly agreeing that a company should be able to place unfair or deceptive provisions in its T&C and then enforce them to the detriment of customers is indeed saying a company can do no wrong.

Do you really think it is any coincidence that RCI's ''enhancement'' that whacked trading power and removed a lot of the better inventory from the system just happened to occur right about the time they thought they had a done deal to kill the class action lawsuit?

That's Just The Kind Of Doofus I Am.

Carolinian said:

Alan thinks he gets great trades when he finds something at the last minute into one of the overbuilt areas.

Click to expand...

If I were a more, uh -- um, er, ah . . . discriminating vacationer, perhaps snagging great last-minute Instant Exchange reservations would leave me so dissatisfied that I would try to get some state attorney general to take RCI to court.

Wouldn't that be something ?

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

Carolinian said:

I believe that the ''plaintiffs attorneys'' have a huge conflict of interest and perhaps an ethics complaint against them may be in order. Maybe we need the address of the State Bar to address such an ethics complaint to. They are totally selling out the interest of their clients.

Also what about the lead plaintiffs? One of them, Aldo, used to post here and on other timeshare boards and is clearly personally committed to reform. I wonder if he could be gotten to denounce the sellout by these attorneys?

I appreciate all you are doing. Please also post this info at www.timeshareforums.com and www.timesharetalk.co.uk to reach others who may not read it here.

If wonder if any resort HOA's would have the guts to take a stand.

Click to expand...

Maybe the plaintiffs are just wrong and their attorney's figured it out in the process.

I hope there is no settlement. I want this thing to be judged and a jury to come to a verdict one way or another. Then, I want it appealed up to the Supreme Court so that we know one way or another if the facts suggest wrong doing by RCI.

The Ultimate Authority.

BocaBum99 said:

I want it appealed up to the Supreme Court so that we know one way or another if the facts suggest wrong doing by RCI.

Click to expand...

After that, I want it appealed to the United Nations & the World Court.

(If somebody else is paying attorney fees & court costs, that is.)

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​