[ALL DEBATE CONTENT REMOVED FROM ORIGINAL THREAD PLACED HERE] All debate topics for the ongoing Wyndham resort closure actions...

[Arimaas]

This is the statement where you, unequivocally, question HitchHiker’s truthfulness. Perhaps, you didn’t mean to, but you most certainly did!

I think you need to reread what I wrote carefully. While I may have mischaracterized what is going on inside HitchHiker's head (since I can't really know unless he tells me) I never called him a liar. I said, it seems to me that he believes the "it's not legal" angle Wyndham is putting out through him, and that it is the actual reasoning behind these actions, and if I question any of their actions, the answer is, because "it is not legal to do otherwise" and because "Wyndham says so". I have a hard time a) believing Wyndham is being truthful and b) that there is not a "legal" way to go about this a different route.

I'd have to go back for the actual "it's not legal" language, and I paraphrase so please don't hold me to the exact language.

 

[Arimaas]

Attorneys are advising Wyndham on how to proceed through what has been described here as an untested bankruptcy court proceeding. What else would you call it?

Wyndham has a goal in mind. None of us are privy to what that goal is specifically. We can only assume that is to wrap this up by 12/31 to get everything off the books as neat as possible by end of CY 25. The attorneys (we think) are advising of them of the best way to go about that, that meets THEIR needs. That has nothing to do with what is "legal" and what isn't. A attorney worth his or her weight in anything, can accomplish whatever a client wants, for the most part (I'm not talking about a criminal defense attorney here). If Wyndham wanted to put a pop up on the reservations it could, it just not in its best interests. Very different than something "not being legal".

Now, this is just by 2¢, so I can't back this up with fact, but if the Wyndham attorneys can find a way to make it perfectly "legal" to sell timeshare by telling outright lies and scaring people into spending more money after an "account review," they could find a way to block out dates "legally".

Either way, this is going to continue on and on. I may have to take a cue from hitchhiker and back out of the continued discussion on this as well.

 

[Rolltydr]

I think you need to reread what I wrote carefully. While I may have mischaracterized what is going on inside HitchHiker's head (since I can't really know unless he tells me) I never called him a liar. I said, it seems to me that he believes the "it's not legal" angle Wyndham is putting out through him, and that it is the actual reasoning behind these actions, and if I question any of their actions, the answer is, because "it is not legal to do otherwise" and because "Wyndham says so". I have a hard time a) believing Wyndham is being truthful and b) that there is not a "legal" way to go about this a different route.

I'd have to go back for the actual "it's not legal" language, and I paraphrase so please don't hold me to the exact language.

I read it carefully several times before I responded. I don’t see how it can be interpreted any other way. You seem to be saying now that you believe he is a shill, but not necessarily, a liar. If you will look back, you will see that I said you called him a “ liar or a Wyndham shill”. I stand by my statement.

 

[paxsarah]

If you will look back, you will see that I said you called him a “ liar or a Wyndham shill”. I stand by my statement.

You're funny.

How do you make that leap?

 

[Arimaas]

I read it carefully several times before I responded. I don’t see how it can be interpreted any other way. You seem to be saying now that you believe he is a shill, but not necessarily, a liar. If you will look back, you will see that I said you called him a “ liar or a Wyndham shill”. I stand by my statement.

Well, you would be mischaracterizing what I said, and if HE believes that, than I apologize to HIM.

Since you don't think I am calling him a liar, let's concentrate on shill.

According to Oxford, a shill "is an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others." I don't believe he is working in concert with Wyndham one bit, meaning I don't think he is an accomplice, meaning, I don't think he, by definition, is a shill. I do think, from what I have read from his posts, is that he believes what his contacts are telling him, and this is what he is reporting it to us. If we question the reasoning, the answer is that is what his contacts are telling him and I should accept it at face value. All I am saying is that I don't believe what his contacts are telling him. If HitchHiker cares enough to comment, I will entertain his posts, as I will owe him an apology if he took my posts as calling him a liar or shill, or something else of the sort. However, I am done further discussing this with you.

 

[Rolltydr]

Well, you would be mischaracterizing what I said, and if HE believes that, than I apologize to HIM.

Since you don't think I am calling him a liar, let's concentrate on shill.

According to Oxford, a shill "is an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others." I don't believe he is working in concert with Wyndham one bit, meaning I don't think he is an accomplice, meaning, I don't think he, be definition,is a shill. I do think, from what I have read from his posts, is that he believes what his contacts are telling him, and this is what he is reporting it to us. If we question the reasoning, the answer is that is what his contacts are telling him and I should accept it at face value. All I am saying is that I don't believe what his contacts are telling him. If HitchHiker cares enough to comment, I will entertain his posts, as I will owe him an apology if he took my posts as calling him a liar or shill, or something else of the sort. However, I am done further discussing this with you.

Good. Bye.

 

[chapjim]

For some one that doesn't care, you seem to read my posts

Yes, I do, but they're getting old and repetitious.

 

[Arimaas]

Yes, I do, but they're getting old and repetitious.

I concur. I even tired myself out. See post 2,392.

 

[comicbookman]

Yeah, there's lots of that around here... they love to engage and have the last word. Even when they are wrong or just grasping at straws to defend their position.

Something that I bet a good lawyer could and should argue is that Wyndham, continuing to accept reservations past the date they know for certain the resorts will be shutting down (demonstrated by the fact that they have told this to employees) means they are in fact acting in bad faith to it's owner base (customers) who have booked their vacations months in advance, in good faith, with the understanding they will be honored.

These two worlds cannot exist similtaneously. You absolutely cannot have it both ways. And the question ultimately will be whether a court sides with "vague legalese" or "Wyndham did not act in good faith and owes compensation to affected parties".

You can't play the "aw shucks, some rando contract verbiage says I can't block out bookings" and the "sorry, you are on your own and we owe you nothing" cards simultaneously.

I see your law degree is lacking again. different laws and contractual obligations apply to members, HOA's and employees. there are federal and state laws as well as specific contractual language which apply to this situation. Add to that that they are going down a new way of closing things down the level of uncertainty is very high. While I hate the result, acting in good faith means means different things than what you and I would like. I have no doubt you could find an ambulance chaser to try to make a brute force bad faith argument, but I doubt any truly decent lawyer would touch such a case.

 

[Floridaman76]

Literally right on cue...

I see your law degree is lacking again.

And I see you and another couple individuals chiming in, right on cue, just like I said you would, to have the last word. So predictable.

 

[comicbookman]

Literally right on cue...


And I see you and another couple individuals chiming in, right on cue, just like I said you would, to have the last word. So predictable.

No, don't need the last word, (feel free to spout some new nonsense after this post) as a lawyer for almost 40 years, I just hate to see lay people spout nonsense about the law as if it were fact.

 

[Floridaman76]

No, don't need the last word, (feel free to spout some new nonsense after this post) as a lawyer for almost 40 years, I just hate to see lay people spout nonsense about the law as if it were fact.

You clearly can't help yourself... keep going and proving my point for me.

Counsellor

 

[jp10558]

I see your law degree is lacking again. different laws and contractual obligations apply to members, HOA's and employees. there are federal and state laws as well as specific contractual language which apply to this situation. Add to that that they are going down a new way of closing things down the level of uncertainty is very high. While I hate the result, acting in good faith means means different things than what you and I would like. I have no doubt you could find an ambulance chaser to try to make a brute force bad faith argument, but I doubt any truly decent lawyer would touch such a case.

This is the thing I've been wondering about. If I'm looking to book a trip, and am booking flights and other hard to change or refund things and you knowingly offer me a accommodations that you never intend to fulfill - isn't that some sort of fraud? I don't mean owners here, I mean presumably they're also renting these still on the open market in Extra Vacations or the like. If you then rug pull me on my lodging I'm suffering actual monetary damages on either more last minute bookings, lost airline tickets or change fees on those tickets, etc. Would trip insurance even cover a booking that went "poof", not for some natural disaster, but because a hotel, TS, AirB&B, whatever didn't actually exist when you showed up?

Now, I have no idea about if there are special "TS or Wyndham is specially immune to these rules" but I'm pretty sure... I asked AI "Would it count as fraud or be illegal somehow if you offer a lodging service to someone say 6 months in the future, they pay, and you don't provide it and never intended to provide it?" and got the following:

Yes, offering a lodging service for a future date, accepting payment, and having no intention of providing the service would likely constitute fraud and be illegal under both civil and criminal law in the United States. This scenario involves key elements of fraudulent conduct.

Elements of Fraud​

For an act to be legally considered fraud, several elements must typically be proven:

• A false representation of a material fact
• Knowledge by the person making the statement that it is false (scienter)
• Intent to induce reliance on that false statement
• Justifiable reliance by the victim
• Damages resulting from that reliance

In this case, advertising a lodging service with no intention of fulfilling it constitutes a false representation of fact. Accepting payment in advance while knowing the service will not be provided satisfies the intent and scienter requirements. The victim’s reliance on the promise of lodging and subsequent financial loss completes the elements of fraud.

Advance Fee Fraud and Federal Implications​

This situation also resembles advance fee fraud, where a perpetrator collects money upfront for a service they never intend to deliver. Such schemes can be prosecuted under federal mail or wire fraud statutes if interstate communications are involved, with penalties of up to 20 years in prison per offense

Now, what I'm betting is that the Wyndham lawyers are thinking no one will sue, or they can claim indirect damages aren't their issue. Who knows how courts would rule, or if there's going to be enough people annoyed enough to themselves make a case of it. Which is IMO one issue in our legal system - it's so hard to deal with it that you have to be screwed out of a LOT of money to make it worthwhile. So companies in general are always breaking the law but just up to the threshold where a customer or otherwise affected person would find it worthwhile to sue.

 

[Arimaas]

This is the thing I've been wondering about. If I'm looking to book a trip, and am booking flights and other hard to change or refund things and you knowingly offer me a accommodations that you never intend to fulfill - isn't that some sort of fraud? I don't mean owners here, I mean presumably they're also renting these still on the open market in Extra Vacations or the like. If you then rug pull me on my lodging I'm suffering actual monetary damages on either more last minute bookings, lost airline tickets or change fees on those tickets, etc. Would trip insurance even cover a booking that went "poof", not for some natural disaster, but because a hotel, TS, AirB&B, whatever didn't actually exist when you showed up?

Now, I have no idea about if there are special "TS or Wyndham is specially immune to these rules" but I'm pretty sure... I asked AI "Would it count as fraud or be illegal somehow if you offer a lodging service to someone say 6 months in the future, they pay, and you don't provide it and never intended to provide it?" and got the following:

Now, what I'm betting is that the Wyndham lawyers are thinking no one will sue, or they can claim indirect damages aren't their issue. Who knows how courts would rule, or if there's going to be enough people annoyed enough to themselves make a case of it. Which is IMO one issue in our legal system - it's so hard to deal with it that you have to be screwed out of a LOT of money to make it worthwhile. So companies in general are always breaking the law but just up to the threshold where a customer or otherwise affected person would find it worthwhile to sue.

I still say there is a possible class action suit here by the folks that made the reservations and had the rug pulled out from under them. However, the only people to really receive anything for their damages in a class action suit is the lead plaintiff, and then the law firm that takes a third. But like I said earlier, I am sure the attorneys and risk managers went over all the permutations that this may play out, that was considered, and still deemed better to operate this way they because it meets their end goals with the best outcome for Wyndham.

 

[Floridaman76]

This is the thing I've been wondering about. If I'm looking to book a trip, and am booking flights and other hard to change or refund things and you knowingly offer me a accommodations that you never intend to fulfill - isn't that some sort of fraud? I don't mean owners here, I mean presumably they're also renting these still on the open market in Extra Vacations or the like. If you then rug pull me on my lodging I'm suffering actual monetary damages on either more last minute bookings, lost airline tickets or change fees on those tickets, etc. Would trip insurance even cover a booking that went "poof", not for some natural disaster, but because a hotel, TS, AirB&B, whatever didn't actually exist when you showed up?

It may not be outright fraud, but it's definitely not acting in good faith, for which there could definitely be legal recourse to remedy.

 

[comicbookman]

It may not be outright fraud, but it's definitely not acting in good faith, for which there could definitely be legal recourse to remedy.

Again with the definitive legal analysis that is not even close to correct. If they are in fact seeking and following legal advice on how to proceed, then they are not acting in bad faith unless they know the legal advice is wrong. Again your legal education comes up short.

 

[Floridaman76]

Again with the definitive legal analysis that is not even close to correct. If they are in fact seeking and following legal advice on how to proceed, then they are not acting in bad faith unless they know the legal advice is wrong. Again your legal education comes up short.

[MODERATOR HAS REMOVED INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT]

Not a legal analysis. But a pretty feasible take on my behalf, since you interjected.

Do you think Wyndham continuing to accept reservations for dates they know they have no intention of honoring is acting in good faith?

[MODERATOR HAS REMOVED INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT]

 

[comicbookman]

You say that like you know what you are talking about, which you clearly don't. Misleading people by confidently making incorrect statements is as bad or worse than what you claim Wyndham is doing. Your lack of legal knowledge is extreme. Try cracking a few law books before you comment on things you clearly don't understand, althoug i suppose it a step up from your made up sales story from earlier in this thread.

Not a legal analysis. But a pretty feasible take. but are 100% wrong. You mislead people by saying things with confidence when you apparently have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe crack a law book before you make legal interpretations. As of know you would are averaging a d- at grade at best.

 

[Floridaman76]

but are 100% wrong. You mislead people by saying things with confidence when you apparently have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe crack a law book before you make legal interpretations. As of know you would are averaging a d- at grade at best.

I'm not giving legal advice.

But there's probably some truth to my rants... and the group at large gets it for free. Are you tallying billable hours to turn in for your tomfoolery?

[MODERATOR HAS REMOVED INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT]

 

[Rolltydr]

And again with you sticking your nose into another conversation because you have to get the last word in

Just in case you don't understand the purpose of this website and its' associated forums, this is a public forum in which every member is free to post and respond to any thread. If you only want to see the posts of people who agree with your opinions, you can use the ignore feature so you don't see anything that might upset you.

 

[comicbookman]

so let me get this straight you give legal opinions that aren't

I'm not giving legal advice.

But there's probably some truth to my rants... and the group at large gets it for free. Are you tallying billable hours to turn in for your tomfoolery?

I withdraw your permission to reply to me since you miserably failed. That won't stop you from trying to get the last word in, because you can't help yourself.

and when called on it resort not to explanations, but insults. then play the school yard game of if you reply to me you just want the last word. It is pretty pathetic that instead of trying to defend your position your only action is to insult and play stupid games. You even try to deny me permission to reply, because you are being shown to be spouting nonsense. I know you will claim "victory" for getting me to reply, but school yard taunts do not make you right. they just show you you have no answer to to reality.

 

[Rolltydr]

But there's probably some truth to my rant

Wow! This is definitely the most truthful thing you've said in this entire thread, with the word probably doing the heavy lifting here.

 

[Floridaman76]

Just in case you don't understand the purpose of this website and its' associated forums, this is a public forum in which every member is free to post and respond to any thread. If you only want to see the posts of people who agree with your opinions, you can use the ignore feature so you don't see anything that might upset you.

[MODERATOR HAS REMOVED INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT]

You really haven't been paying attention if you think this is about me being upset if one of my statements turns out to be wrong. Honestly I could care less. I'm stating an opinion and furthering a conversation.

The truth here is none of us know, this is all conjecture, and the optics of how Wyndham has been playing this out is attocious.

 

[Rolltydr]

if one of my statements turns out to be wrong. Honestly I could care less.

This is quite apparent. I will give you credit, you have stated a few times, paraphrasing, that you don't know what you're talking about and you are just spreading conjecture, rumors, half-truths, half-baked opinions, and you just don't care. Of course, you state all of them with absolute conviction and as if they are factual statements. Then, when someone calls you out, you admit you don't know what you're talking about, you're just furthering the conversation. You're not. [MODERATOR HAS REMOVED INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT]

 

[Rolltydr]

Because some people can't help themselves and have to have the last word.

If we're the ones who must have the last word, why are you still talking? [MODERATOR HAS REMOVED INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT]