Interesting Article in Boston Herald about NCL Court Case

[smeyer418]

The analogy is spot on in this situation . . . :D

I am 99.44% sure that the venue/choice of law provisions have not been significantly modified in 10 years. I read them everytime I cruise. and have been cruising about twice a year(more or less) since 2001 and while some of the other sections have been slightly/significantly modified these are relatively unchanged....except that the right to go to small claims court has come and gone and sometimes comes back again

[Duff Man]

It doesn't sound like a "loop hole" that will now allow passengers to get cancel two weeks before the cruise. A key part of the article is when is says that "The court ruled that for failing to fully disclose its refund policy to the Casavants . . ." While something vague may have happened back then, I doubt that is the case today, it seems well disclosed now when you make full payment, and you have to acknowledge the contract.

[Gail & Marty sailing away]

I thought some CC members might find this interesting.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1363151&srvc=rss

Good for them.

[goose30]

Good for them.

 

Yea absolutely good for them that the courts can give them a decision with the potential to create chaos in the industry. People don't read the rules and then they want to be compensated. Yea good for them.

 

I bought a car in Mass in 1991. There is nothing in the contract that says I can not return it for a full refund. I am on my way.

[swedish weave]

When you cheer them on for "winning" remember to wave a few dollars, because we all pay for decisions like this. The only winners are the lawyers !!

[smeyer418]

Per my second note in red above, here's Supreme Court Rule 10:

 

Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:

 

(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual

course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power;

(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;

© a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2010RulesoftheCourt.pdf

 

 

yes but see this case...

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=10-76

 

 

decided purely on state law(jurisdiction) where the SC applies the 14th amendment to reverse and say that the state's construction of minimum contacts was wrong. My point is that the Sc can find a reason if it wants to...particularly when its a corporate defendant...and yes I was wrong on the amount in controversy for a diversity jurisdiction...