Looks like someone from Sunchaser, Northwynd or wherever has listed their 20 mis conceptions on another thread.. Makes for a long night of reading and answers some questions but also creates a whole lot more.. you need to go back to the Canadian Forums and find the posts from Sunchaser customer service. As always the road to information on this is a muddy messy trail. Deadline sucks and more leverage being applied. if the poster of the Sunchaser thread reads this a roadmap may have been helpful.. Also how do the number of cancellations at this time compare to the number choosing to stay.
Hello Rider Nation Rocks.
Thank you for your inquiry. We will do our best to provide you a short answer.
We characterize this situation as a simple issue with a lot of “white noise” because of the history of the resort.
Under any contract, there are only two questions:
1) What does the contract say?
2) Has either party breached the contract?
Justice Loo dealt with #1 by providing everyone three very important conclusions:
1) The timeshare owners are responsible for all costs of operating the resort including the renovation fee.
2) The contracts do not entitle the timeshare owners a right of termination which means any cancellation must be on terms acceptable to Northmont.
3) Our responsibility is to act reasonably in the operation of the resort and the renovation plan is a reasonable plan.
That is all really simple, but for those delinquent owners who are unhappy with the answer, it leaves question #2 which is where it gets messy because of two major misconceptions:
1) Any breach is a repudiary breach: We address this as Misconception #3 and recommend everyone read it. Deliquent owners seem to be turning over every rock for dirt and looking in every closet for a skeleton incorrectly believing that any “gotcha” lets them walk away, but that is not how the law works. Earlier in this thread, there was even a suggestion we’ve done something wrong because we emailed an owner their statement because they are "supposed to get it in the mail."
2) Northmont is responsible for Fairmont’s actions: We address this as Misconception #9 and recommend everyone read it as well.
Let us deal with Fairmont for a minute because it is the lightning rod. We are not here to defend Fairmont. On the contrary, our unitholders are probably as mad as or madder at Fairmont than you are (see Misconception #4). Fairmont did not just put you in this situation, it put all of the employees and it put our 800 unitholders in it too. Unfortunately, Fairmont went bankrupt.
We are all trying to clean up the situation that was put in our lap. Nobody “deserves” this situation, but that doesn’t change the circumstances. Our job is to make the best of a bad situation and we are trying to do that. Being mad at Fairmont or worse, being mad at us because being mad at Fairmont is futile, only makes the situation worse.
This is why we announced the renovation a year ago. We realized many owners would need to go through a period of being mad, then understanding, and then hopefully accepting. We hoped five months would be long enough for that to happen and it did for most owners. We believe 90% of our owners had accepted (not liked, we don’t expect everyone to like it) the situation in May. However, many wanted confirmation that our interpretation of the contract was valid before making a decision.
From our experience talking to thousands of owners, those who are still in the mad phase remain there because they cannot get past Fairmont’s actions. We believe they are mad at us as surrogates for Fairmont.
Back to the issue at hand. We have not seen any evidence of wrongdoing by Northmont which is no surprise to us because we do not have any skeletons. We may not be operating the resort perfectly, but no company is perfect. Justice Loo confirmed our responsibility is to act reasonably and we have and will happily stand up in court, in front of the media, or in response to any owner stating we have done so without hesitation.
Delinquent owners who continue to fight this now have to win three, yes three, legal battles if they want to succeed in getting out of their contract. They have to win the appeal. Then they have to win the lawsuit when Northmont sues them for default, and then they have to win Northmont’s appeal of that suit.
In each case, they have to convince a judge or panel of judges that Justice Loo of the Supreme Court of BC was wrong, Justice Romaine of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench was wrong, and that Northmont is in breach of contract at a repudiary, not just curable, level.
While we do not think this has any chance of succeeding because we think both judges were correct and do not think we are in breach of contract, even the most militant detractor cannot believe the likelihood of victory is more than 50%.
You have to ask yourself if spending three years (because it will probably take at least that long to fight) and whatever amount in legal fees it takes, is worth it for a fight that has a very low chance of success and very high cost (three years of maintenance fees and interest, the renovation fee, and legal costs) of failure.
Also, please do not take our word for it. Someone will probably say, and correctly, that we benefit from not fighting. We do and we don't hide that fact. Everyone loses in unnecessary legal battles except the lawyers, but there is no doubt we are conflicted. Don't take our word for it, or the word of any other conflicted party. The best way to answer the question is to ask an independent advisor/friend/family member/lawyer. Ask someone who has no vested interest in the outcome to give you an honest opinion free of the emotion of the situation.
We apologize; this did not turn out short at all. However, we hope it helps.
