Knowledge: getting the exchange you want without having the "exchange power"

[Jbart74]

And what law are you suggesting RCI/II is breaking?

timeos, I know you've read this thread, but I'll post it here for others who may have not. Although many of us are not happy with the results of the case, it does prove that RCI has broken the law.

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86065

I'm not an attorney or a legal type, but RCI has broken the law. If they had not, they would not have to make the (meager) concessions as defined by this settlement. I cannot tell you what law it is that they broke. But they are guilty of taking advantage of their customers in an illegal way. So that's enough for me to make my point as posted previously above.

 

[bnoble]

I'm not a doctor, but that sure looks like cancer to me.

More seriously, having been involved in a lawsuit or two (as a party, not as a lawyer), settlements sometimes happen because they are less expensive, overall, than taking something through the court system---even when you believe you are going to win.

I'm not saying that RCI is blameless here, but a settlement, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily mean that "laws were broken." It's the terms of the settlement that matter---how much they were willing to give up to stop the suit. In this case RCI doesn't appear to have given up very much at all.

 

[timeos2]

Big jump from settlement to illegal act(s)

timeos, I know you've read this thread, but I'll post it here for others who may have not. Although many of us are not happy with the results of the case, it does prove that RCI has broken the law.

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86065

I'm not an attorney or a legal type, but RCI has broken the law. If they had not, they would not have to make the (meager) concessions as defined by this settlement. I cannot tell you what law it is that they broke. But they are guilty of taking advantage of their customers in an illegal way. So that's enough for me to make my point as posted previously above.

I'm not a lawyer, and I have no particular "love" for them, but your assumption that an agreement to settle a complaint automatically means one side or both were doing something illegal simply isn't correct. Even if one or both sides feel they are absolutely in the right - and you can bet both do - using their heads and preventing even more wasted money to the shyster types that actually do cash in on these things is only common sense. In neither case are the combatants likely to be happy or are they admitting any wrong doing. If the plaintiffs had a good case they wouldn't settle - if RCI had unlimited funds to fight they would press their view. Neither does so they compromise, admit no guilt and the world goes on. Nothing illegal there.

 

[gmarine]

I have to agree. This lawsuit wasnt about breaking the law. If it was it would have been in a criminal court. It was not. As much as I dislike RCI, the lawsuit was nonsense which is why the settlement amounted to RCI giving up almost nothing. RCI settled to avoid ongoing court costs, not because they did anything wrong.

 

[gmarine]

John Chase, I am not trying to bait and switch. I deposited a Royal Mayan and asking for Royal Mayan , just a different week. I would not call this a bait and switch! Deosited a week 24 and asked for a week 5-8. Does that sound like bait and switch?

I am sorry for getting into this discussion. My beef is with II not RCI.

My main thing was:WHY CAN'T I SEE ANY EXCHANGES??? I guess I have the answer and II does not show them like RCI does.

I was not aware of the SIGHTING board until just a few weeks ago. Just don't try to do a lot of trades so it is not one I read.
SORRY FOR ALL THIS CONFUSION.!!!

You deposited a Royal and you are asking for a Royal but it isnt that simple. You are trying to trade an off season week 24 for a peak season week 5-8. There in lies the problem. You are trying for a huge upgrade in seasons. IMO,based on II's "like for like trading system", you should not get the trade.

With 100 being average demand,week 24 is a 90 on II's Travel Demand Index which is below average demand. Weeks 5-8 are 145,130,140 and 120 respectively with 150 being the highest possible.

The problem in this case isnt with II, it is expecting to trade an off season week for a prime season week. I suggest you expand your exchange request to include more Cancun resorts to have a chance at getting the week you want.