BocaBum99
TUG Member
Re: WorldMark No House Keeping account on eBay!!!!
Your interpretation of the intent of that clause is incorrect. I've already stated why.
What is more important than literal words in documents is actual practice and behavior. Trendwest and owners have been renting and profiting from their ownerships for years. Just look at eBay at all the profiting. And, Trendwest has been a very active party to these activities. Just check out the credit rental board on WM4M. So, whether or not they are in writing and whether or not your interpretation is correct, is irrelevant. Trendwest knows it, promotes it and it benefits from the activities. So, it leaves it alone. And, the owners benefit from it as well, so all parties are not incented to do anything about it.
Just look at Fairfield. For years, they allowed VIP owners to book discounted reservations and rent them. Now, they try to reverse that practice by stating that this is just enforcement of the existing rules. Guess what happened? The owner revolt made them back track and put it back in place.
That was an example of written rules that were violated and left alone and when it was convenient for FF to make VIP sales. When that was done and it cost more than the benefit, they tried to pull it unsuccessfully.
So, not only is your interpretation of the intent of the clause incorrect, your interpretation of its relevance is greatly overstated as well.
cotraveller said:I find this a most interesting thread.
If you browse the various threads on the forum you will read that timeshare companies often blatantly ignore the written rules and regulations that they are supposed to follow. The owner’s interpretation of those rules and regulations is correct, the company is wrong, and legal action should be pursued if necessary to force the company to comply with the rules and regulations in the written documents.
If you browse through this thread you will read that it is ok for an owner to sign a document (or assume that document through a purchase on the resale market) that includes a statement that he will not do something and then turn around and do that something. Once again the owner’s interpretation of the document is right and the company is wrong. If necessary, attempts by the company to enforce the clause in the signed contract should be met with legal action.
The clause in the Vacation Owner Agreement does not state that the company (WorldMark and/or Trendwest in this case) represents that the purchase is or is not an investment. Irregardless of how you choose to interpret it, it does not mention the company. It specifically states that the owner represents that he is not purchasing for financial profit. A purchase which follows a suggestion such as “If you plan to flip the account just keep it as a separate account, buy more credits and make it a larger account, then sell it” would appear to be a purely profit motivated purchase and in violation of that clause.
Concerning the quote from the World Mark guidelines about rentals, the last sentence, “Owners shall not charge any fee in cases where rental is prohibited by local law or restriction, or in cases that the Club Board determines are not in the best interests of the Club” (emphasis in bold added) provides an exclusion to that guideline. But then again what is “in the best interests of the Club” is subject to interpretation and the Club will undoubtedly be wrong again.
As I said, a most interesting thread. But don’t take any of this too seriously. I was just illustrating that there is nearly always a potential hiccup in any idea or plan. Things are seldom strictly black and white.
Your interpretation of the intent of that clause is incorrect. I've already stated why.
What is more important than literal words in documents is actual practice and behavior. Trendwest and owners have been renting and profiting from their ownerships for years. Just look at eBay at all the profiting. And, Trendwest has been a very active party to these activities. Just check out the credit rental board on WM4M. So, whether or not they are in writing and whether or not your interpretation is correct, is irrelevant. Trendwest knows it, promotes it and it benefits from the activities. So, it leaves it alone. And, the owners benefit from it as well, so all parties are not incented to do anything about it.
Just look at Fairfield. For years, they allowed VIP owners to book discounted reservations and rent them. Now, they try to reverse that practice by stating that this is just enforcement of the existing rules. Guess what happened? The owner revolt made them back track and put it back in place.
That was an example of written rules that were violated and left alone and when it was convenient for FF to make VIP sales. When that was done and it cost more than the benefit, they tried to pull it unsuccessfully.
So, not only is your interpretation of the intent of the clause incorrect, your interpretation of its relevance is greatly overstated as well.
