Go Back   CruiseMates Cruise Community and Forums > Practical Advice > Travel Gripes!
Register Forgot Password?

Travel Gripes! Gripe about cruises or getting to one.(airlines, taxis)

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old November 1st, 2005, 10:33 PM
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 22
Default u can bring it on{alcohol}so im told

i know its a topic people tend to go nuts about and get flamed for speaking of but i read on another board about someone who was behind a lawer getting on a ship and when he was stopped and asked for his liqour bottles had mention the RESTRICT of TRADE CLAUSE which he went on to say someone{cruiseline} or hotel can not deny you entry with a product that they sell for a marked up profit...he was then allowed to proceed without the bat of an eye!!!! now i am know that there are all kinds of reasons why this can be seen as cheap/ or on the otherside be seen as money savy but can someone tell me if they have heard of this?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old November 2nd, 2005, 10:02 AM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 428
Default

That sounds typical of a lawyer always out to see what he can get for himself. I was in an accident where the guy hit me going 10 MPH. Afterwards I had several lawyers calling me saying "please sue for 1 million dollars I can get you this money and all you have to do is seem hurt." I hate lawyers that is why my wifes whom works as a nurse insurance premium is high and our car insurance rates or high is because of ambulance chaseing aholes lawyers. Don't be a cheap idiot like this lawyer if you can't play by the rules then don't cruise.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old November 2nd, 2005, 10:44 AM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 7,373
Default

Goinagain, don't believe it. Sounds like someone who knows someone whose cousing twice removed saw this and swears by it's truthfulness. It is quite legal to demand that you are not allowed to bring certain products onboard with you.
Jim
__________________
24 cruises and counting!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old November 2nd, 2005, 11:00 AM
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 22
Default

i agrre that lawers have crippled our society in many ways....but on the flipside legal is legal.....i am one also who thinks that if you cant afford the fun you want then you shouldn't go....but i just wondered if this is what is known as a phantom clause...unknown unless asked about....or tested...I have asked a few lawer friends and they all say it is against restrict of trade laws....but you know all lawers think they hold the keys to the castle...lol
__________________
[url=http://www.TickerFactory.com/]
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old November 2nd, 2005, 11:51 AM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 428
Default

I am sure to someone from a foreign country that doesn't know anything this type of legal jargon was confusing and since everyone that doesn't get their way on a cruise will threaten to sue they probably decided not to mess with him. My friend and I went to see the Cowboys play Sunday and they wouldn't let him bring a beer inside of course they wanted to sell him a 12 OZ for 5.00. Everybody is in business to make money and the cruiselines should ne no different. But that is not what cruisers think.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old November 2nd, 2005, 12:37 PM
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 22
Default

i agree that it seems people will threaten to sue for any old reason theese days....but legal is legal ....i know that this is a way for them to keep cruise fares cheaper for everyone, but if something is illegal i can not be allowed to do it and neither should a cruiseline...if the marriot tried this they would look ridiculous ....i know cruises are "different type of travel" but is that just because we believe what we are told by cruislines especially when they threaten to raise rates???once again i'm not cheap and spend heavilly on trips a few times a year, but legal is legal, moral is moral, and the two are not allways as close together as they seem... either way it doesnt really effect me, just looking for input
__________________
[url=http://www.TickerFactory.com/]
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old November 2nd, 2005, 12:38 PM
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 202
Default

I don't know about cruiseships, but I have many times had food confiscated while trying to sneak into a movie theater or theme park with my own stash of snacks to avoid having to pay their over-inflated prices.

Many entertainment venues have rules about bringing in your own food and beverages, so I have to think that if this law really existed, every class action lawyer in the country would be having a field day filing frivolous lawsuits on behalf of the poor abused souls who were denied their low cost munchies.

I think the above poster is right that the cruiseline employee was probably intimidated by legal jargon and thought it easier to just let him pass than to argue. I don't blame anybody for trying to save a little by bringing on their own alcohol, but I find it sad that a lawyer (if he really was a lawyer) would abuse his position by using legal jargon to intimidate just to save a few bucks.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old November 2nd, 2005, 12:42 PM
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 22
Default

thats what im thinking too the employee was hard at work and did not feel like arguing with a passenger...especially a lawer of all people..{no offense to you lawers..lol}
__________________
[url=http://www.TickerFactory.com/]
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old November 2nd, 2005, 12:56 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 288
Default

Remember this, lawyers are not as smart as they would have us believe. They, as a hole, are only right 50% of the time.
__________________
If ya ain't cruising ya ain't livin!!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old November 2nd, 2005, 01:27 PM
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 22
Default

true but intelligence is pointless lol..sad but true...cases are ruled through precedents...
if a case has won before thats all a lawer need to know to sink their teeth in....i'v met many { sorry to say} unintelligent {to be fair} dumb {to not be fair} lawers and they only need to know what will win em a case
__________________
[url=http://www.TickerFactory.com/]
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old November 2nd, 2005, 09:08 PM
banker's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,341
Send a message via MSN to banker Send a message via Yahoo to banker
Default

I agree that most legal challenges are not about right or wrong, it is about winning, and one who is right doesn't always win. It's better to win than be right.

But my issue with cruise/alchohol policy is that they shouldn't be using their obligation to ensure our safety as a means of finding alchohol.

If they have a policy of not bringing your own they should incur the cost of more staff to check for it, more machines (whatever) and inconvenience us more by making us wait through another line. Then we will see how quickly a void in the marketplace will be filled by a line that does allow your own stuff.

Something like - 1) here's your line for security etc, and 2) here's another line up for us (the cruise line) to check you out to make sure you don't have any stuff we don't want you to have

Keep in mind that I'm not talking about drugs because most countries and societies consider drugs to be illegal but not alchohol and beer.

banker
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd, 2005, 01:08 PM
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 946
Default

If I'm not mistaken, the lines that don't allow carry on alcohol have clauses in their contracts that allow them to deny passengers to ability to do so. As a retired lawyer, I fail to see anything illegal about the restriction, if it is in the contract. Also, as a retired lawyer, I am greatly tired of reading all the "lawyer bashing' here and elsewhere. In case you haven't realized it, corporations don't have the individual's interest in mind. Further, they don't even have the stockholders' interests in mind anymore. It is all about how many mega bucks upper level management can siphon off. Anybody who has tried to deal with an insurance company lately, or has purchased gasoline, knows what I mean.

I am by no means in favor of cruise lines' restricting carry on beverages. It has caused me to change lines, and alter my cruising habits, and I think it was one of the poorest public relations move some lines could have made. But just because it is stupid and somewhat unpopular does not make it unlawful.

Thanks,
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd, 2005, 01:21 PM
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 22
Default

its not lawer bashing ,....lets be honest now you went to school to be a lawer for what reasons???????it pays very very well,,,, allways at the extreme expense of others {9/10 times} now i usually pride myself in not stereotyping a whole class of people any class or group or whatever so i will not automatically assume your an ambulance chaser cause you could be an environmental lawer or help out old ladies, so sorry if u were offended... but i work in the music industry and any time I am asked what i do and tell someone that they automatically tell me oh your into like loud music all night parties and living on the road in hotels partying all the time...and they are right!!!

"sometimes certain things come with the territory we place ourselves in" ...

I just live ,love and laugh
__________________
[url=http://www.TickerFactory.com/]
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd, 2005, 02:25 PM
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 946
Default

I went to law school because I felt being a lawyer was a job I could do. In contrast, from my experience in accounting classes, I knew I wouldn't be any good at that. And yes, environmental law was one of the areas in which I practiced.

Thanks,
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd, 2005, 03:04 PM
banker's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,341
Send a message via MSN to banker Send a message via Yahoo to banker
Default

Well, I love to lawyer bash my friends. I disagree with you goinagain, one of my best friends is a doctor, and 1 happens to be a lawyer. The lawyer became a lawyer because he was perfect for the job, and litigation and the law always interested him (since he was a kid - I've known him), and my doctor friend who just got back from blowing his brains out in Vegas today actually will tell you straight up he became a doctor so his parents would be proud, the prestige, and the money.

PS - I bash my lawyer friend because I feel he is best able to defend himself and his personality is the type that constantly takes shots at me being a banker (I have more money than him, so that's where I end the arguments)

banker
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd, 2005, 03:18 PM
Tide Pride's Avatar
Senior Member
Yeoman
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 635
Default

Richard:
I am sure you were a fine lawyer with integrity. However your own profession is its worse enemy and everyone knows situations and cases that contribute to the low image the legal profession enjoys.
Just now I read where a customer at Home Depot is suiing them. It seems that a prankster put glue on a toilet seat and this poor man go stuck and could not get off.
Another example of our courts getting jammed up with this crap ( no pun intended ).

Regards,

Ben
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd, 2005, 03:47 PM
banker's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,341
Send a message via MSN to banker Send a message via Yahoo to banker
Default

Tide, someone wanted or needed to sue, and someone needed or wanted to defend, the lawyers just do their job. Are we saying that as a society we blame lawyers for our litigous nature? All they do is go to court and win cases. Are we saying they should purposely lose some cases so that people will see that there is no money in stupid law suits and we as a society will stop suing?

They just do their thing, and they advertise themselves like anyone else. It is people that create law suits and want to sue, lawyers don't make it up by themselves.

Now, that being said, I still love to bash lawyers!

banker
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd, 2005, 04:09 PM
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 946
Default

We are getting way off topic here, so I'll take it a bit further out --- then bring it back. In Federal courts, something called "Rule 14" applies. Under this rule, a lawyer who brings a frivolous suit can (and often is) punished and fined enough to hurt! All State courts I know of have a similar rule. The media tends to report on frivolous suits when they are filed, but very seldom report on them when Rule 14 (or similar state rule) is applied, the case dismissed, and the lawyer fined. Now to bring this back on topic.

I wouldn't (as a lawyer or a client) even think about bringing suit against a cruise line that had a "no carry on" or "right to regulate alcohol" clause in the cruise contract --- for fear that Rule 14 would be applied against me. It's a long story, but the contract in all that fine print you get from the cruise line aplies. If it says they can keep passengers from bringing on booze, they can, as stupid as such a rule is.

Thanks,
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd, 2005, 04:26 PM
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 22
Default

and there we have it...i knew it would only take a little poking to get a lawer rattled enough to answer my question for free....he he he he ...but thanks for clearing it up.
__________________
[url=http://www.TickerFactory.com/]
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd, 2005, 04:46 PM
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 202
Default

I have nothing against lawyers in general. I've even relied on their services myself a few times. I do, however, have something against the ever-increasing tide of class action lawyers who clog up our court system with senseless lawsuits that net thousands for the lawyers while all the plaintiffs "win" is a lousy coupon for $1.00 off their next purchase.

What really gets my guff, though, is the new wave of high-tech ambulance chasers that have invaded the T.V. and Internet with their ridiculous attempts to turn every Tom, Dick and Harry into a plaintiff:

VOICEOVER:

"It has just been discovered that the drug XYZ has caused heart problems in .0000001% of those who have taken it (never mind that it cured cancer in the other 99.9999999%). Have you ever taken XYZ? We can get you money! Even if you have no symptoms and are in the best health of your life, we can get you the settlement that you deserve! Just call WE-MAKE-MILLIONS LAW FIRM and let us help you!"

The above is obviously an exaggeration, but the actual commercials have gotten almost as ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd, 2005, 04:47 PM
banker's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,341
Send a message via MSN to banker Send a message via Yahoo to banker
Default

goinagain, no way, ain't happenin, no such thing

I'm sure Richard's bill is in the mail (including the 0.2/minute for booting up his computer)!!

good one though!

banker
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd, 2005, 05:23 PM
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 202
Default

If you want to see our wonderful class action system at work, check out the settlement agreement for a recent class action suit against NetFlix at http://www.netflix.com/Settlement?lnkctr=mfStl.

Apparently, some idiot decided he had been treated unfairly because he didn't receive his rental movies as quickly as NetFlix's marketing material led him to believe that he would. Instead of just doing what a reasonable person would do and cancel the service that he was dissatisfied with, Mr. Idiot decides to sue. Of couse, Mr. Idiot's lawyer saw this as an opportunity to rake in a bundle by turning it into a class action lawsuit.

Apparently, NetFlix has agreed to settle the suit rather than spend the time and energy to fight it. So what did the plaintiffs "win"?

1) The original Mr. Idiot who filed the suit gets $2,000 - he turned a minor annoyance into a $2,000 windfall, so maybe he wasn't such an idiot afterall! It's is interesting to note, however, that he made out no better than he could have in small claims court. Except that a small claims court judge probably would have thrown him out of the courtroom for this ridiculousness (I know Judge Judy would have).

2) All the other plaintiffs get to enjoy one month of upgraded service (meaning if you usually pay for 2 movies at a time, you will get to have 3 at a time for one month) - WHOOPEE!

But wait, there's a catch! The settlement specifically states that you must manually cancel your upgraded service after the one free month. If you don't, than NetFlix can continue charging you the upgraded service fee until you do cancel. So your big "win" might actually end up costing you money if you forget to cancel or were ignorant of this requirement.

In this day of computers, it's hard to believe that a system couldn't be setup to automatically cancel the upgrade after the free month, but then NetFlix would lose out on the extra money that they will make from those who forget to cancel. Could it be that his settlement was designed to benefit the lawyers and NetFlix and not the plaintiffs (except for the original Mr. Idiot who made out pretty damn good)?

3) The plaintiff's attorney gets (drumroll, please) - $2,528,000!

So who exactly did this settlement benefit? Because I am a member of NetFlix, I am automatically a plaintiff in this lawsuit, but somehow I don't feel that I won anything.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd, 2005, 05:32 PM
banker's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,341
Send a message via MSN to banker Send a message via Yahoo to banker
Default

So my point is, who is at fault? The plaintiffs? The lawyers on both sides? or the system for allowing this joke?

banker
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd, 2005, 05:37 PM
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 946
Default

First, banker, there's no fee here. I'm retired, remember? And also remember that a lawyer's advice is usually worth what you pay for it!

I hate to hear stories like that DVD rental class action thing. For every lawyer who gets a $2 million plus rip off like that, there are thousands like my daughter who is an environmental attorney in SW Colorado working her rump off for $45K per year, and living in an area where $250K gets you a dinky one bed condo! The general public tends to greatly over-rate how much attorneys make. In truth, there are too many lawyers, and the laws of supply and demand keep the pay of lawyers fairly low. Want to see what I mean? Unless you live in NYC, LA, of SF, just run a "help wanted" ad in the paper, offering a full time job for the successful lawyer/candidate, requiring 10 years specific experience (you pick the area), and offering a salary of $100K per year. You will find that the incoming resumes will fill every room of your house, floor to ceiling! You will literally have thousands of resumes. And then you will understand that lawyers who "pop" $2 mil are rare --- very rare.

Thanks,
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd, 2005, 05:44 PM
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by banker
So my point is, who is at fault? The plaintiffs? The lawyers on both sides? or the system for allowing this joke?

banker
All of the above.

The original plaintiff for trying to turn his minor annoyance into a major windfall. The plaintiff's attorney for trying to then turn it into an even bigger windfall. NetFlix and their attorney for agreeing to settle instead of fighting (if more company's had the backbone to fight these frivolous lawsuits, maybe class action law wouldn't be such a lucrative business). And the whole darn system for allowing this fiasco to make it into court in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd, 2005, 10:28 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 7,373
Default

Richard, some of my best friends are lawyers. Actuall the plan was for me to retire after 20 yrs as a cop and then take the Bar and become a lawyer, even though my job would be to put the bad guys away again, just from a differant area. My heart and morals would never allow me to defend anyone that I thought was guilty of a crime and I just don't think I would ever do one of these lawsuits where some idiot slipped on a wet floor because it was raining outside and busts their bum and sues for a million while only hoping to get a few grand and letting the attorney get his $10 out of it. Just not in me. Still I had a gruding admiration for a number of barristers, even some on the 'other' side. I do wish the Judges would enact that rule and maybe some of these cases will stop.
As for ships and booze, the contract says no and that means no and they can either take it from you with your permission or you can just walk your litte butt of thier ship.
Jim
__________________
24 cruises and counting!
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd, 2005, 10:29 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 288
Default

I stand by my original statement, lawyers are only right 50% of the time. This thread proves it. You have one lawyer telling us that it is illegal and another one says its legal. Who's right? Just one, which equals 50%. I get better odds then that on slot machines.
__________________
If ya ain't cruising ya ain't livin!!
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old November 4th, 2005, 10:09 AM
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 946
Default

Two things here:

First, I can find no post from a lawyer on this thread saying a cruise line contract banning outside alcohol in unenforceable. When dealing with one of these stupid lines that won't let you carry on to your room, you can sneak or you can bluff. The latter is what your friend did.

Second, I just saw the news report of the Home Depot "glued to the toilet seat" suit. The report of the facts above is just a tad distorted! The guy IS NOT suing Home Depot because some prankster put glue on the toilet seat, which glued him down. He IS suing based on the claim that he yelled for help all day and was ignored by Home Depot employees. Now, that's a bit different type of law suit, isn't it? Store owners have some duty as to the safety of their customers. If the guy can prove that Home Depot employees heard, or should have heard, his yells for help, he's got a valid case. Rings a bit true to me. Hell, I get ignored by Home Depot employees all the time --- not while glued to the toilet seat, but while searching for hardware!

Thanks,
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old November 4th, 2005, 12:17 PM
banker's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,341
Send a message via MSN to banker Send a message via Yahoo to banker
Default

I totally agree that if employees heard him asking for help and did not respond then there is responsibility on the part of the store to be responsive to someone asking for help (injuries etc, not asking for purchasing help) - that's just what I think and obviously not a legal opinion.

But, if it was me, and I had that happen to me, then I would simply remove my pants, and go talk to a manager (being in boxers could be offensive but not really that offensive considering the nature of the situation).

banker
(actually, I take that back, I have a pair of homer boxers that say "doh" all over them, and that could be offensive)
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old November 4th, 2005, 12:30 PM
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Clark, NJ
Posts: 231
Default

"First, I can find no post from a lawyer on this thread saying a cruise line contract banning outside alcohol in unenforceable. When dealing with one of these stupid lines that won't let you carry on to your room, you can sneak or you can bluff. The latter is what your friend did."

Ah, yes - the old "if you can't wow them with wisdom, baffle them with bull***t" - really works sometimes. I vote for the theory that the poor embarkation worker just wanted to get the line moving.

Actually, the OP has posted this story on so many boards I'm beginning to think it is his own personal urban legend.

Having said that, cruise ships have every right to limit or prohibit anything they want from their ships (think irons, candles) - just as movie theaters can prohibit one from carrying in popcorn, sodas or candy. You wouldn't think of going to a bar and bringing your own bottle of beer now, would you? Of course, some of us (present company included) just love seeing how much we can get away with to save a few bucks.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
u can bring alcohol on? so im told goinagain Carnival Cruise Lines 14 November 13th, 2005 05:27 PM
Alcohol again???sy but can u bring.... shawnjessie Princess Cruise Lines 5 March 15th, 2005 02:11 PM
bring your own alcohol ? outbackspecial Carnival Cruise Lines 8 January 22nd, 2004 08:08 PM
About bring Alcohol hipines Cruise Dress / Packing 0 August 26th, 2003 02:04 PM
Can we Bring alcohol? Kathy Royal Caribbean International 4 January 20th, 2002 11:06 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


 

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:00 AM.
design by: Themes by Design



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1