Deneen et al v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc.; August 14, 2019 [Merged]

[HitchHiker71]

The sentence reads Wyndham or its successors. "Or" is used as a conjunctive adverb meaning both Wyndham and successors are different entities. Wyndham is singular and successors is plural.

The word " and" instead of "or" could mean corporate successors but they used "or" meaning at least two groups, Wyndham or its successors.

In a contract "or" describes this or that. In a contract "and" describes both this and that.

Bill

I don't want to argue, but I disagree. Wyndham is not a singular reference from the perspective of the legal definition. Here's the definition of Singular Successor that you posted:

Singular successor. A term borrowed from the civil law, denoting a person who succeeds to the rights of a former owner in a single article of property, (as by purchase,) as distinguished from a universal successor, who succeeds to all the rights and powers of a former owner, as in the case of a bankrupt or intestate estate

Is Wyndham a person? No. Since Wyndham is in fact a corporation, by definition it's not possible that it's a Singular Successor. Wyndham is a Corporation, which by definition means it's a Corporate Successor. That is embedded in the context. The use of "or" is almost universal with respect to succession IME. I've never seen the use of "and" in all my years of contract review with respect to Corporate Succession. Reason being, "and" requires both entities to exist. So if Wyndham terminated their incorporation after being subsumed by another entity, the fact that Wyndham corporation no longer exists, would mean that both entities would have to exist in order for the contractual verbiage to apply. Easy to skirt that outcome - simply eliminate one of the two entities right? The use of "or" negates this possibility, as it would apply to either entity - and with respect to the successor entity - it is plural - meaning it would apply to multiple succession entities - which itself eliminates the possibility of negating the class action by enacting multiple divestitures via multiple succession entities.

 

[OldGuy]

The issue is not one of sleaze so let's stop the nonsense

Nonsense? Is that like absurd?



How is this lawsuit not about unethical sales practices, ie, sleaze?

“Wyndham’s business model is premised on the false assumption that you can lie to consumers to get them to sign confusing, vague and ambiguous boilerplate contracts and that because then there is a purported written agreement, you have no liability for the lies,” the Wyndham class action lawsuit claims.

The Wyndham class action lawsuit claims that desired destinations are not available at the desired time and need to be booked as much as a year beforehand.

“The business practice of Wyndham is to focus on selling points, rather than managing the destinations and making them available to members. Wyndham members find that there is little availability. When they complain, Wyndham’s response is that they need to buy more points,” the Wyndham class action lawsuit alleges.

The plaintiffs also state that a sales pitch to purchase more points begins even before the vacation goer parks their car. Before they are given a parking pass, they are urged to attend an owner meeting update, which is just a sales presentation for Wyndham to purchase more points.

The Wyndham class action lawsuit claims that if members are able to get parking passes without attending a sales meeting, they are harassed with phone calls and marketing materials are placed under their doors to attend more sales meetings.

“These meetings last most of a day and do not conform to most consumers’ idea of a ‘vacation day,’” states the class action lawsuit.


https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit...ss-action-says-timeshare-sales-are-deceptive/

 

[chapjim]

If the discussion in this thread were limited to unethical sales practices that affect Wyndham as a seller and and a retail buyer, I would not have commented. However, people keep dragging in all kinds of irrelevant nonsense about resale buyers, etc., and we have had a very unfocused discussion.

If part of the complaint is, as you suggest, that Wyndham does not fulfill its contractual obligations, I'm pretty sure that will fail. I don't think that is part of the complaint. In all the hundreds of discussions on TUG about Wyndham, I doubt there are more than a handful that complain that Wyndham does not fulfill its contractual obligations.

 

[OldGuy]

If the discussion in this thread were limited to unethical sales practices that affect Wyndham as a seller and and a retail buyer, I would not have commented. However, people keep dragging in all kinds of irrelevant nonsense about resale buyers, etc., and we have had a very unfocused discussion.

If part of the complaint is, as you suggest, that Wyndham does not fulfill its contractual obligations, I'm pretty sure that will fail. I don't think that is part of the complaint. In all the hundreds of discussions on TUG about Wyndham, I doubt there are more than a handful that complain that Wyndham does not fulfill its contractual obligations.

Then why even file a lawsuit? I mean, if you already have it resolved?

 

[ecwinch]

This whole thread line of "this includes resale buyers because they are successors" is really moot, because this class action is not going anywhere. Class actions never result in meaningful relief for the class, and only exist to generate revenue for the attorneys involved.

 

[dgalati]

If the discussion in this thread were limited to unethical sales practices that affect Wyndham as a seller and and a retail buyer, I would not have commented. However, people keep dragging in all kinds of irrelevant nonsense about resale buyers, etc., and we have had a very unfocused discussion.

If part of the complaint is, as you suggest, that Wyndham does not fulfill its contractual obligations, I'm pretty sure that will fail. I don't think that is part of the complaint. In all the hundreds of discussions on TUG about Wyndham, I doubt there are more than a handful that complain that Wyndham does not fulfill its contractual obligations.

Status and privilege is not free if buying from Wyndham. No laws are broken when two parties have a meeting of the minds, a signed contract and there is some monetary consideration involved.

 

[OldGuy]

Class actions never result in meaningful relief for the class

Never?

https://www.gjel.com/blog/largest-class-action-settlements.html

A notable sample:

Cendant chairman Walter Forbes and vice chairman Kirk Shelton were both imprisoned on conspiracy charges and ordered to pay over $3 billion each in restitution.

 

[ecwinch]

Never?

https://www.gjel.com/blog/largest-class-action-settlements.html

A notable sample:

Cendant chairman Walter Forbes and vice chairman Kirk Shelton were both imprisoned on conspiracy charges and ordered to pay over $3 billion each in restitution.

Yes, I did over generalize.

But here we discussing is class action lawsuits in the timeshare industry, not product liability or accounting fraud.

As this recent post indicates:

https://www.tugbbs.com/forums/index.php?threads/2016-lennen-v-marriott.242224/

 

[chapjim]

Then why even file a lawsuit? I mean, if you already have it resolved?

I agree 100%. It's a stupid filing. Plaintiffs' attorneys probably think they have a lottery ticket and they're right. Their chances are about that good (meaning, bad).

 

[OldGuy]

But, it is filed, and it can be followed. It shows right up on search engines.

It should be resolved in about 6 years, if it gets expedited.



When you look at the list of successful class action cases I posted, you never know.

That list does not even include the current one against Roundup.

Just because the one against RCI, which the plaintiffs won-ish, legitimized RCI's bad behavior, doesn't mean some of them don't impact those behaving badly.

 

[ecwinch]

Just because the one against RCI, which the plaintiffs won-ish, legitimized RCI's bad behavior, doesn't mean some of them don't impact those behaving badly.

Of course, if you ignore the one against Worldmark By Wyndham, and the other against DRI in Kauai. And their actually were two against RCI - one on the weeks side, and the other on the points side.

All of those cases have one common thread - they were settled, the class got some meaningless relief, the lawyers got a nice payday, and the timeshare company got a settlement that explicitly granted them the right to do what they do. In the Worldmark case, it explicitly granted Wyndham the right to unilaterally set credit values.

 

[easyrider]

This whole thread line of "this includes resale buyers because they are successors" is really moot, because this class action is not going anywhere. Class actions never result in meaningful relief for the class, and only exist to generate revenue for the attorneys involved.

We will see how this rolls out. Certainly the law firms will be making money and Wyndham will be paying attorneys and possibly a settlement which will affect their earnings. I don't consider it moot but I do find it interesting because I have attended Wyndham presentations and I do own Worldmark.

Bill

 

[OldGuy]

the class got some meaningless relief,

I dunno. I'm a member of the class, and get RCI weeks for $239, and for others, too.

 

[dgalati]

I wouldn't count on receiving much after the lawyers take their cut. Most class action lawsuits result in very little compensation for the plaintiffs.