Copy of Old RC Cruise Ticket Contract

[negotiator]

I posted the same request in a thread about fuel surcharges, but I would like everyone to see this. If anyone has a copy of the Cruise Ticket Contract that is older than the current one on the website (looks to have been changed in early November), please forward it to me. A Cruise Ticket Contract that is anywhere from six months to one year is preferable but any would do.

I am trying to determine the RC's right to add the $35 surcharge to current reservations. My family of 10 has a trip scheduled for Feb 17th that would add around $350 to the price of our tickets. I feel this is unfair and as an attorney am setting out to prove that it is also against the terms of RC's contract.

If I find that the contract has in fact been changed to reflect RC's right to add the surcharge, I will be writing a letter to their legal department. I am willing to add others to my letter or send them a copy of the letter so that other passengers may submit a similar letter.

Thanks

[CA Cruiser]

The fuel charge goes into affect for any cruises on or after 2/1/08 and is on all cruiselines. It is only for the first 2 passengers in a cabin for the first 7 days only. So if you have 4 ppl in a cabin, the second 2 won't have to pay. We just paid for our 15 day cruise for Feb. 16 but only for the first 7 days.

[Robbie H]

Sorry but NOT 7 days .....it's 14. This is right off of the website;

The supplement applies to the first and second guests in a stateroom up to a maximum of $70 per person per sailing, for new and existing bookings.

[CA Cruiser]

Thanks Robbie, I stand corrected. I was thinking $10/day for 7 days but it is $5/day with a 14 day cap. That's what happens when you try to work and visit cruise websites!

[Robbie H]

Soitenly glad to pitch in Teresa!

And as to the original point, I have a layman's question;

Isn't the contract entered into AFTER final payment? I know it's frustrating and with a new franchise it was a small pain to change existing bookings. But even with that I think "RCI" was smart to add the surcharge only to bookings that had not made final payment. Even though we agree to the contract as part of the "before you board" procedure, you used to sign it and submit it at the dock. So how would it possibly be applicable in this case?

[Manuel]

Wouldn't be better to just go , have a good time and not worry about a few extra dollars?

Manuel

[jaxon]

Negotiator

Dying of curiosity -- what happened on the other board? You have been totally removed.

[GTPETE]

Originally Posted by Manuel

Wouldn't be better to just go , have a good time and not worry about a few extra dollars?

Manuel

TOTALLY AGREE

[jaxon]

Originally Posted by GTPETE

TOTALLY AGREE

Certainly for some, that is a preferable way to go, but for others who believe stongly in the rule of law, principle, justice, and all those other sometimes inconveniencing things, it just isn't possible to "let it roll."

[jaxon]

Originally Posted by Robbie H

Soitenly glad to pitch in Teresa!

And as to the original point, I have a layman's question;

Isn't the contract entered into AFTER final payment? I know it's frustrating and with a new franchise it was a small pain to change existing bookings. But even with that I think "RCI" was smart to add the surcharge only to bookings that had not made final payment. Even though we agree to the contract as part of the "before you board" procedure, you used to sign it and submit it at the dock. So how would it possibly be applicable in this case?

offer/acceptance/consideration makes a contract. One can certainly argue reliance on the brochure and the FAQ's which said the price would not rise after booking, except for taxes and other governmental fees. The actual old contract of carriage did not speak to any extra fuel charges, the new one --post 11/16 added a clause allowing it, but for those who booked prior to 11/16, that is not applicable. There is at least one section of the contract dealing with seaworthiness of vessels which is actually void per federal law, which I think argues against those who have said -- well, their legal department must know what they are doing. Additionally, the selection of venue clauses in cruise contracts have been thrown out in some circumstances because the passenger did not receive the contract of carriage until after final payment when a penalty ensued for cancellation. While it has been an industry standard to have the actual contract of carriage signed or acknowledged at the last moment, it is a practice fraught with legal pitfalls.

I think the breach of contract case is very viable, but it will be interesting to see what RCI's response to it is. So far, those of us who have asked for their legal justification have been ignored -- I would guess, they ignore the same question coming from an AG at their peril. I know of 6 state AG's which have been sent a complaint. So far, we have only heard from Florida that they have opened an investigation.

[Manuel]

GTPETE I love your mustang logo

Manuel

[jaxon]

Originally Posted by jaxon

offer/acceptance/consideration makes a contract. One can certainly argue reliance on the brochure and the FAQ's which said the price would not rise after booking, except for taxes and other governmental fees. The actual old contract of carriage did not speak to any extra fuel charges, the new one --post 11/16 added a clause allowing it, but for those who booked prior to 11/16, that is not applicable. There is at least one section of the contract dealing with seaworthiness of vessels which is actually void per federal law, which I think argues against those who have said -- well, their legal department must know what they are doing. Additionally, the selection of venue clauses in cruise contracts have been thrown out in some circumstances because the passenger did not receive the contract of carriage until after final payment when a penalty ensued for cancellation. While it has been an industry standard to have the actual contract of carriage signed or acknowledged at the last moment, it is a practice fraught with legal pitfalls.

I think the breach of contract case is very viable, but it will be interesting to see what RCI's response to it is. So far, those of us who have asked for their legal justification have been ignored -- I would guess, they ignore the same question coming from an AG at their peril. I know of 6 state AG's which have been sent a complaint. So far, we have only heard from Florida that they have opened an investigation.

Just an update -- my AG has now acknowledged the receipt of my complaint and is looking at it. FL AG has turned this over to economic crimes division/multi-state litigation, opened an investigation, and is writing those who complained. As you may know, the Canadians no longer have to pay the surcharge if they booked before Nov 16th. due to the provincial regulations of several provinces which would have required the TA's to eat the surcharge, and Europeans were given an extended time with which to pay in full to avoid it. In short, RCI has chosen to screw the US pretty exclusively.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by jaxon

In short, RCI has chosen to screw the US pretty exclusively.

What do you mean by "screw the US pretty exclusively"?

[Dave the Wave]

Fuel charge, schmuel charge.... let's all have a drink and cruise!

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Dave the Wave

.... let's all have a drink and cruise!

Drinks at your or my place. my friend

[Dave the Wave]

Your place or at the main pool bar either one!

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Dave the Wave

Your place or at the main pool bar either one!

Oki doki,
We´ll close very late tonite for special guests.

[Annie S]

Thank you JAXON for keeping us updated on this matter.

Wish all the other nonsense on this subject would stop.

[Paul Motter]

While the fuel surcharge is inevitable, this is not the first place I have seen the method under which it was put in place questioned. I think it bears looking into and I am glad their is an attorney on the case. This applies to all cruise lines, not just Royal caribbean.