Club 33 Membership Changes for 2012

[flynnibus]

You're thinking with a narrow mindset. Broaden your perspective, look at the entire picture.
Legally, when a member joins a private organization, the member has a reasonable expectation that said benefits are to be maintained by the organization so long as the member pays dues.
Additional benefits are not be expected but may be added.
Removal of any benefit cannot occur if such benefit could be considered a major motivational factor as to joining. Removal of any major benefit can result in legal action by members unless a consensus is reached by majority and therein financially compensated.
Why a few cannot understand this most simple of legal concepts is peculiar.

Then take your dues you aren't going to renew with and pay a lawyer instead. Because I'd love to see that one go down in flames in court. 'reasonable expectation said benefits are to be maintained so long as the member pays dues'. buahahahahah

This is a paid club you joined... not a commune

[Osky]

I get what you are saying but it is not an apples to apples comparison. No guest has ever been encouraged by the staff to help themselves to the toilet paper.

It was not meant as a comparison. It was purely meant to illustrate the point that an explicit rule does not have to be broken for someone to call something "abuse." Now that you have conceded that, then I know that you can understand points made in earlier arguments where some of us agree that it is "abuse". You don't have to agree that it is abuse.

[David A]

Disneynut:


That is so wrong, I don't even no where to begin. Disney is duty bound to the contract that they entered into with their members. That contract explicitly states the terms of the benefits, including how long they are available for (the calendar year). It also explicitly states that they are subject to change in subsequent years. If you feel you have a case, please contact an attorney. I would like to know what provision in your contract that you feel Disney violated.

I'd love to agree with you, but sadly, you're incorrect. Contractually they have a reasonable expectation to maintain the major benefits which can be defined at the 'drawing factor' of the membership to which initial dues were initiated.
Disney violated the club members trust by eliminating the 'drawing factors'.
Again, it's simple.

[Disneynut]

It was not meant as a comparison. It was purely meant to illustrate the point that an explicit rule does not have to be broken for someone to call something "abuse." Now that you have conceded that, then I know that you can understand points made in earlier arguments where some of us agree that it is "abuse". You don't have to agree that it is abuse.

We don't ever have to agree on this, that is fine. The issue remains. You can't ask for something and then later deem it abuse when you were given what you asked for. No matter how many analogies we throw at this, it does not amount to abuse in my book. In poor taste and lacking good judgment, you bet. Hardly abuse in my book. But that is ok, we are all entitled to have an opinion.

So, let me help out with the legal end of this...depending on what a member or potential member was told, it could absolutely rise to the level of fraudulent inducement. I am not saying it does, but it can certainly be argued. Law is subject to interpretation and these types of disputes can take years to resolve.

[DL714]

Then take your dues you aren't going to renew with and pay a lawyer instead. Because I'd love to see that one go down in flames in court. 'reasonable expectation said benefits are to be maintained so long as the member pays dues'. buahahahahah.

The case would be dismissed before trial. All Disney would have to do is produce the signed contract of the claimant. As Rachane posted earlier, on the contract it explicitly states that Disney reserves the right to change the terms of membership at any time. Claimant signed. Disney changed the terms. Case dismissed.

[David A]

Disneynut is very much correct in regards to the legal aspects of this case.
I believe what most of us, as members, are hoping for is that Disney will realize their error and seek remedy.
None of us expect anything except that which we have paid for and were promised upon the initial joining.
Some of the users in this discussion are attempting to make a mockery of our issues, a most childish approach but typical of 'kids with keyboards'.

[Disneynut]

The case would be dismissed before trial. All Disney would have to do is produce the signed contract of the claimant. As Rachane posted earlier, on the contract it explicitly states that Disney reserves the right to change the terms of membership at any time. Claimant signed. Disney changed the terms. Case dismissed.

I can only assume you do not hold a JD and that you are not a member of the bar. In order to proceed to trial, I would only need to show that there is a genuine issue of fact. I could easily argue that I was told one thing and they did another. Disney could certainly argue that the language in the contract is controlling but I can easily overcome this hurdle and get it to trial. Assuming this is their argument, you can argue Fraud in the factum. This is not black and white, only shades of grey.

[Osky]

So, let me help out with the legal end of this...depending on what a member or potential member was told, it could absolutely rise to the level of fraudulent inducement. I am not saying it does, but it can certainly be argued. Law is subject to interpretation and these types of disputes can take years to resolve.

Since you want to discuss law, lay it on me. What are the grounds and contract terms? Don't talk in vagaries about someone could have said this, or what someone told a potential member. What are the facts here?

In any case or situation, we can go on and on and on about the vagaries of what "could be." You can take any situation and say "the law could have been broken." That doesn't mean it was. I am still waiting to hear one small shred of evidence that is actionable here. Let's not discuss hypotheticals. Let's discuss facts. You want to talk law, let's talk law. This is what we need:

What terms of the contract(s) is Disney and/or the members in violation of?
What particular law(s) with regard to the aforementioned terms is Disney and/or the members violating?

Unless you can fill in some details, it is all just hearsay and hypothetical mumbo-jumbo.

[David A]

The case would be dismissed before trial. All Disney would have to do is produce the signed contract of the claimant. As Rachane posted earlier, on the contract it explicitly states that Disney reserves the right to change the terms of membership at any time. Claimant signed. Disney changed the terms. Case dismissed.

Please shoot me the case law quote.

[Disneynut]

Since you want to discuss law, lay it on me. What are the grounds and contract terms? Don't talk in vagaries about someone could have said this, or what someone told a potential member. What are the facts here?

In any case or situation, we can go on and on and on about the vagaries of what "could be." You can take any situation and say "the law could have been broken." That doesn't mean it was. I am still waiting to hear one small shred of evidence that is actionable here. Let's not discuss hypotheticals. Let's discuss facts. You want to talk law, let's talk law. This is what we need:

What terms of the contract(s) is Disney and/or the members in violation of?
What particular law(s) with regard to the aforementioned terms is Disney and/or the members violating?

Unless you can fill in some details, it is all just hearsay and hypothetical mumbo-jumbo.

I guess I must repeat myself...we are not dealing with facts. We are dealing with the hypothetical that was laid out by Flynnibus. If a member relied upon any statement made by a cast member, manager or other individual employed by Disney that was uttered in the attempt to sell the membership, regardless of the specific language in the contract, one could argue they were fraudulently induced into the agreement.

Disney would obviously argue that regardless of the utterance, the contract is controlling. What you fail to realize is that it may take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to resolve this simple little question.

Please don't be so naive as to tell me that you know what a court would do with this, as of yet, non-existent cause of action.

[Osky]

Please don't be so naive as to tell me that you know what a court would do with this, as of yet, non-existent cause of action.

Where did you even get this idea I would do that based on anything I have said? No determination can be made about anything without knowing the facts.

---------- Post added 05-22-2012 at 04:36 PM ----------

Disney would obviously argue that regardless of the utterance, the contract is controlling. What you fail to realize is that it may take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to resolve this simple little question.

What I fail to realize? Why do you say that? I am well versed in court costs and time. Deal with it on a daily basis.

[David A]

Since you want to discuss law, lay it on me. What are the grounds and contract terms? Don't talk in vagaries about someone could have said this, or what someone told a potential member. What are the facts here?

In any case or situation, we can go on and on and on about the vagaries of what "could be." You can take any situation and say "the law could have been broken." That doesn't mean it was. I am still waiting to hear one small shred of evidence that is actionable here. Let's not discuss hypotheticals. Let's discuss facts. You want to talk law, let's talk law. This is what we need:

What terms of the contract(s) is Disney and/or the members in violation of?
What particular law(s) with regard to the aforementioned terms is Disney and/or the members violating?

Unless you can fill in some details, it is all just hearsay and hypothetical mumbo-jumbo.

Oh Good Lord, this is simply hilarious.
Filing a civil action for contractual misrepresentation is intrinsically simple and the evidenciary issues of many such cases are often based upon third party testimony and hearsay. The initial 'Official Rules & Regulations' are the primary document in question.
Beyond those rules and regs, it's primarily reasonable man theory.
Again, it's simple.
I'm sure the judiciary would really enjoy this but we'd probably have a venue issue being that there is a bench officer in OC who is a member and several in LA. Many of whom have actually held fund raisers at the club as well as en-robing parties. They're fun, been to a few!
It would be a kick to move this into a civil litigation suit, but Disney must first be served an order to comply. I don't believe they've been served such, but rather only letters of discontent. There is a bit of difference.
Hey, maybe I'll hire Harvey Levin. "I'M A LAWYER!"

[Disneynut]

What I fail to realize? Why do you say that? I am well versed in court costs and time. Deal with it on a daily basis.

I was not able to glean this from your request that I present an entire case to a Disney chat board.

[Nonsuch]

From page 42

3. Look at the timing. Why did Disneyland change the rules now? Hmm?
Why has this policy been in place for so many years with great success?
After California Adventure blatantly failed, why was a 'new' Club 33 knock off placed there?

You might have partially answered your own question.
California Adventure has been a failure, but Disney (and me too) expect the Grand Re-Opening to be a huge success.
The Platinum Membership drive is linked to the re-opening, with new memberships starting on June 15. The Billion Dollar investment in California Adventure is the largest change to the resort, since California Adventure was originally built.

It makes sense that Disney will try to extract profit from all areas of the resort.

[Osky]

Oh Good Lord, this is simply hilarious.

What is hilarious is that you throw out terms like fraud and breach of contract, yet you cannot answer a simple question relating to your accusations. I have made no claims of likelihood of outcome, standing, merit, etc. I simply said I want to know what the facts are, and you think it is funny.

Seriously, if you have been wronged, then I am all for you getting your due process. Disney makes a lot of decisions that I do not like. I am also not happy with a lot of changes to the club. I wish things were different. But the only thing that Disney has done wrong, from what I glean from these posts, is upset their longstanding members. Don't get me wrong, that is a terrible thing. The way they went about it was horrible. But when I hear things like they perpetrated fraud, well that piques my interest, and I want to know more.