People_advocate
Guest
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2023
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7
I have read all 8 pages of the thread started by GreenTree.
I commend them on their tenacity and resolve to see a wrong, and then to take action to rectify the wrong, rather than rolling over and accepting someone wrongfully taking advantage (by whatever means). I also agree with Green Tree’s approach of not using the timeshare on principle, but also because I believe it aids in the validity and credibility of her defense. In my opinion, this should be viewed as a consumer success story as opposed to questioning Green Tree’s motivations or manner in which they accomplished the desired outcome. After all, Green Tree accomplished something that less capable naysayers claim can’t be done.
Some commenters have said things like “they are choosing to die on this hill,” or “they should have read their contract,” but in my opinion, these comments are not addressing the driving motivation of someone who not only believes (but knows) they are on the side of right and they know they will eventually prevail. It all comes down to knowing how to make it happen.
I am no expert, but facts are facts, and when they are on your side, you just need to be adept at jumping through the hoops and obstacles that are put before you.
I could give example after example of people who, if they had laid down and just taken what others dish out, they would have needed to work to age 70 instead of retiring at 50. I could also give example after example of settlements that were reached by playing the reputation card. Basically, this is typically where the facts are so strong that a defendant could not pass the red-face test of public opinion.
Like others, I also wish that Green Tree would have stayed in this thread and not been afraid to comment further. I saw how lawyeronthebeach commented that they believe Hilton would have included a confidentiality clause in whatever agreement was reached, but I suspect, as was my experience with Marriott, that the timeshare just rescinded the timeshare after the rescission date, likely without any written agreement at all. After all, what would a honorable company want to hide from the consuming public? (That was sarcasm). If, as suspected, Green Tree’s rescission did not have a confidentiality agreement, then there is nothing prohibiting Green Tree from commenting as much as they want on social media as long as only stating facts as opposed to slandering. I also believe that Green Tree likely had other evidence for a rescission that may have permitted a rescission after the rescission date, as was my case.
Kudo’s to Green Tree! I appreciate your stick-to-it-iveness.
I commend them on their tenacity and resolve to see a wrong, and then to take action to rectify the wrong, rather than rolling over and accepting someone wrongfully taking advantage (by whatever means). I also agree with Green Tree’s approach of not using the timeshare on principle, but also because I believe it aids in the validity and credibility of her defense. In my opinion, this should be viewed as a consumer success story as opposed to questioning Green Tree’s motivations or manner in which they accomplished the desired outcome. After all, Green Tree accomplished something that less capable naysayers claim can’t be done.
Some commenters have said things like “they are choosing to die on this hill,” or “they should have read their contract,” but in my opinion, these comments are not addressing the driving motivation of someone who not only believes (but knows) they are on the side of right and they know they will eventually prevail. It all comes down to knowing how to make it happen.
I am no expert, but facts are facts, and when they are on your side, you just need to be adept at jumping through the hoops and obstacles that are put before you.
I could give example after example of people who, if they had laid down and just taken what others dish out, they would have needed to work to age 70 instead of retiring at 50. I could also give example after example of settlements that were reached by playing the reputation card. Basically, this is typically where the facts are so strong that a defendant could not pass the red-face test of public opinion.
Like others, I also wish that Green Tree would have stayed in this thread and not been afraid to comment further. I saw how lawyeronthebeach commented that they believe Hilton would have included a confidentiality clause in whatever agreement was reached, but I suspect, as was my experience with Marriott, that the timeshare just rescinded the timeshare after the rescission date, likely without any written agreement at all. After all, what would a honorable company want to hide from the consuming public? (That was sarcasm). If, as suspected, Green Tree’s rescission did not have a confidentiality agreement, then there is nothing prohibiting Green Tree from commenting as much as they want on social media as long as only stating facts as opposed to slandering. I also believe that Green Tree likely had other evidence for a rescission that may have permitted a rescission after the rescission date, as was my case.
Kudo’s to Green Tree! I appreciate your stick-to-it-iveness.
Then 4 nights of the week are charged that rate (1488) and 3 nights are charged double that rate (2,976). It's always been that M - Thu are the cheaper rate, and Fri, Sat, Sun are the 2x rate. However, starting in 2025, it will be Thu - Sat that are the 2x rate, and Sun - Wed that are 1x rate.