Has anyone discussed a breach of contract action against Vidanta with Vidanta representatives based on failure to construct The Parks?
Under US law fraud is a tort cause of action, not based in contract.
Completely understand the difference between the causes of action. My response to the first question was to ask the following:
Not seriously. Have you read the clauses that cover the possibility that it's never built in the contracts?
The clauses I was referring to include the portions of Clause 8 on Sister Resorts that reads "Company has arranged for Member to use, as a direct internal exchange, as alternative accommodations during the construction of the Resort, and as alternative accommodations under Clause 9.2, any of the Member's weeks at a Sister Resort..." and Clause 9.2 itself. There are various different ways that these are phrased in different versions of the standard contracts. I would read this as probably allowing the substitution of the alternative accommodations during the construction period - I don't like it, personally, and I don't believe anyone else that has purchased such a contract from Vidanta would like it, but we seem to be at the mercy of Vidanta to make things right if they feel like it. No doubt the purchasers of the Mansions of the World are in a similar position.
If you think you can pursue a fraud cause of action in light of the disclaimers and acknowledgements they taped in the contract closing interview over the phone, more power to you. Please update us on how successful you are.
This was not meant as legal advice, of course, as I am not licensed to practice law in Mexico and don't know enough about their law on the subject. The choice of laws provisions in the standard Vidanta contracts make that the applicable law for the contracts as far as I know - also not intended as legal advice. Kind of a standard disclaimer I make to avoid seeming like I'm attempting to do anything near practicing law outside of jurisdictions I'm licensed in.