Alcohol Confiscation

[negc]

No. Actually I am quite serious.

 

I was just making a point from a legal perspective.

 

I am not a lawyer but im sure there is one here somewhere that could chime in.

 

My laymans understanding of the law is that unless they are doing testing on the confiscated substances (the swirl test doesn't count) then there could absolutely be a lawsuit and most likely why no one has ever heard of anyone been denied boarding.

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1154798

 

You layman's understanding probably won't get you very far in such a challenge and one can be thankful that they aren't reliant on you for sound legal advice. :rolleyes:

[zekekelso]

I think they do have the right to deny boarding if they find alcohol in your luggage....:confused:

RCI's agreement claims that right. That doesn't mean they actually have it.

As far as we can tell, they have never once implemented the policy.

[andrzej5914]

No. Actually I am quite serious.

 

I was just making a point from a legal perspective.

 

I am not a lawyer but im sure there is one here somewhere that could chime in.

 

My laymans understanding of the law is that unless they are doing testing on the confiscated substances (the swirl test doesn't count) then there could absolutely be a lawsuit and most likely why no one has ever heard of anyone been denied boarding.

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1154798

 

You missing one very important point. RC does not confiscate the alcohol. They will merely STORE it for you and return it after the cruise.

 

There is no legal issue whatsoever and no lawyer ever challenged this (after all the policy has been around for years now) and no lawyer will.

 

Serving of alcohol or allowing alcohol on your premises allows the proprietor(s) to pick and chose what is/is not acceptable. Any bar in the land can refuse service to you and have you escorted out if they feel you are too intoxicated and they don't need to run any tests on you. Alcohol laws favor the servers and property owners, not the users.

[waterbug123]

You missing one very important point. RC does not confiscate the alcohol. They will merely STORE it for you and return it after the cruise.

 

It appears that this is no longer the case. Ours was not returned last week, nor was that of anyone else in our group.

[Stags14]

RCI's agreement claims that right. That doesn't mean they actually have it.

 

As far as we can tell, they have never once implemented the policy.

 

I don't understand how they can claim to have the right but not have it? If it's part of their contract that is agreed to by the customer (us) how wouldn't they have the right? I don't think they enforce it b/c if they did they'd have an empty boat!!!

 

As for the legal argument here there really are no grounds for an argument even. They cover their butts... believe me, RCCL has a better lawyer than you'll ever have, and he's looked over this contract and told them what they can and/or cannot do. And in order to cover this, they have stated that you can't bring beverages onboard, alcohol or not.

 

Rules are rules guys. If you want to break them, go ahead. But don't try to turn around and blame the cruiseline for having them, or saying that someone should sue for getting in trouble for doing something they knew they weren't supposed to do. That's asinine, and immature. If you get caught, you get caught... you deal with whatever the consequences are.

[yogimax]

I'm going to guess that RCCL's legal department is slightly more astute than CC members!

[gsb]

If one cannot afford to pay for drinks onboard, then one probably can't really afford to cruise. RCI can refuse anyone, who tries to bring any banned substance on onboard. They have publisherd a list , so it is public knowledge. It is the same as anyone banning anything in their own house or at their place of employment.

 

I can afford to cruise, but I choose not to pay for their overpriced beverages. Just one of my pet peeves.;)

[janetz]

On previous lines we have brought on a bottle or two of wine to have in our cabin. We can afford to cruise. We order wine at dinner and we have drinks elsewhere onboard. This will be our first RCCL cruise, and the first time we are not allowed to.

[zekekelso]

I don't understand how they can claim to have the right but not have it? If it's part of their contract that is agreed to by the customer (us) how wouldn't they have the right?

Just because they put something in the contract, that doesn't make it so. Google "contract of adhesion" if you want to see the nitty-gritty legal theory. But, as an extreme example, imagine that RCI put something in the contract claiming ownership of the first-born child of anybody who wears flip-flops to the main dinning room. You think that actually gives them the right to take somebody's child?

 

They cover their butts... believe me, RCCL has a better lawyer than you'll ever have, and he's looked over this contract and told them what they can and/or cannot do.

And I'm sure their lawyer* is telling them exactly what I posted. Which is probably one reason they have never even tried to enforce it. Companies put unenforceable clauses in contracts all the time in order to encourage certain behavior.

 

* Not sure how you know (a) it's a "he" or (b) that "he's" better than any lawyer I'll ever have... but those are side point.

[CruiseKeeper]

It appears that this is no longer the case. Ours was not returned last week, nor was that of anyone else in our group.

 

Last March on the Explorer, during the Captain's Q&A, we were told that they have given enough warning about alcohol smuggling and were no longer returning it. I don't know if they kept to that, but that's what they said then.

[Stags14]

Just because they put something in the contract, that doesn't make it so. Google "contract of adhesion" if you want to see the nitty-gritty legal theory. But, as an extreme example, imagine that RCI put something in the contract claiming ownership of the first-born child of anybody who wears flip-flops to the main dinning room.

 

 

 

And I'm sure their lawyer* is telling them exactly what I posted. Companies put unenforceable clauses in contracts all the time in order to encourage certain behavior.

 

* Not sure how you know (a) it's a "he" or (b) that "he's" better than any I'll ever have... but those are side point.

 

All I'm saying is that the rules are the rules, and if you break them, don't be shocked if they make you pay the consequences that are clearly written in the contract. I don't think they refrain from denying people their vacation because they don't have the authority. In my opinion they refrain from it because SO many people try to save a buck by bringing some alcohol onbard. And I understand that, believe me. But they do enforce rules, they do have jails onbaord and they do kick people off at their own expense.

 

Not answering the "*".

[zekekelso]

But they do enforce rules,

They enforce *some* rules. RCI has millions of passengers every year. Many have been caught bringing alcohol on board. As far as we know, RCI has never, not once, denied somebody boarding merely for trying to bring alcohol on board.

[livsea2]

I don't understand how they can claim to have the right but not have it? If it's part of their contract that is agreed to by the customer (us) how wouldn't they have the right?

 

It's simple, I can claim the right to behead you if you fail to do something I arbitrarily demand you must do in a contract. I can even have you sign it and agree to it before a dozen witnesses. It would not be enforeable in court. Therefore rights that they don't have are being claimed.

Any business can claim anything they wish in a contract but that doesn't make it enforceable. A business often hangs a sign "not responsible for this or that or ANYTHING." It isn't worth the paper it's written on.

[andrzej5914]

Last March on the Explorer, during the Captain's Q&A, we were told that they have given enough warning about alcohol smuggling and were no longer returning it. I don't know if they kept to that, but that's what they said then.

 

Only a month ago they had room attendants returning all the booze on the last evening.

[Dave85]

They're not going to deny people boarding for booze for 2 reasons: (1) doesn't make financial sense to them -- losing all of the on board revenue, the business of that customer (and everyone he/she knows) forever, and causing the public uproar that would result, and (2) if there ever would be a lawsuit it's far more likely to occur under those circumstances (the denial of a vacation worth thousands of dollars) rather than because RCI threw out someone's $10 rum runner flask...

 

This stuff's complicated, I'm in my last semester of law school and I couldn't tell you definitively whether that portion of the contract is enforceable (although I'm sure a contracts attorney could). I can tell you though that things are often put things in contracts that are not enforceable. I highly doubt though that we'll be seeing a class action anytime soon over lost rum runners (most of which don't get caught anyway) and discarded bottles of Three Buck Chuck and Bankers Club. :p

[ladycanuck]

what is a rumrunner?

[waterbug123]

Last March on the Explorer, during the Captain's Q&A, we were told that they have given enough warning about alcohol smuggling and were no longer returning it. I don't know if they kept to that, but that's what they said then.

 

Well, since last March we have successfully carried wine onto RCCL ships in May, July, November and December. Last week was the first time it was confiscated.

[JordanLovesCruisin]

Just got off the Navigator yesterday. We tried it, SO bought some Bacardi and tucked it in his hoodie. Well, when we unpacked, the Bacardi was nowhere to be found. However, there was a bright orange notice saying that it was not allowed and that we would not get it back.

 

Oh well. Not a big deal, not a drinker :)

[bluegirlum]

Just because they put something in the contract, that doesn't make it so.

 

Another example of this is the disclaimer on a ticket at a hockey game that says that the team/venue isn't responsible if you get hurt by an errant puck or something. By buying the ticket and showing up to the game, you implicitly agree to the terms of the contract, and are supposed to agree that they won't be liable if anything happens.

 

However, if you get hit in the head with a puck and get injured, there's still a chance that you could recover some damages. You didn't sign your life away by merely buying the ticket and showing up at the game. The team/arena "claims the right" not to be liable for your injuries, but that doesn't mean it has the right to be negligent.

[Dave85]

what is a rumrunner?

 

It's two things: an alcoholic drink, and in the context discussed in this thread it's a sturdy plastic flask that can be purchased online that many folks have used successfully to smuggle alcohol on board. Google "Rum Runner Flasks" and the website that sells them will come up.

[JordanLovesCruisin]

It's two things: an alcoholic drink, and in the context discussed in this thread it's a sturdy plastic flask that can be purchased online that many folks have used successfully to smuggle alcohol on board. Google "Rum Runner Flasks" and the website that sells them will come up.

 

A guy on the shuttle bus with us put his in binoculars that were hollowed out for liquor. People are getting sneaky.

[Stags14]

A guy on the shuttle bus with us put his in binoculars that were hollowed out for liquor. People are getting sneaky.

 

Wow.

[Stags14]

Another example of this is the disclaimer on a ticket at a hockey game that says that the team/venue isn't responsible if you get hurt by an errant puck or something. By buying the ticket and showing up to the game, you implicitly agree to the terms of the contract, and are supposed to agree that they won't be liable if anything happens.

 

However, if you get hit in the head with a puck and get injured, there's still a chance that you could recover some damages. You didn't sign your life away by merely buying the ticket and showing up at the game. The team/arena "claims the right" not to be liable for your injuries, but that doesn't mean it has the right to be negligent.

 

GO DEVILS!!

 

Your points are valid. Basically, your biggest risk for trying to sneak on some booze is having the bottle break in your luggage.

[jackdiamond]

Mr. ChuckFl-I am a retired trial attorney; and, allow me to advise you that this is not the type of case that I would touch with the proverbial tne foot pole.

[Aquahound]

My laymans understanding of the law is that unless they are doing testing on the confiscated substances (the swirl test doesn't count) then there could absolutely be a lawsuit and most likely why no one has ever heard of anyone been denied boarding.

 

This is about a company's rules that you agree to follow in the contract. This is not about constitutional rights. There is a big difference.