Room Service Charge Now Fleetwide, New Restaurant Pricing Onboard Norwegian Cruise LI

[esp13]

IIRC, these type of contract or agreement where you give up certain litigation rights, don't hold water in court. There is, however, a big movement and SC case against obligating people to use arbitration boards and let the go through the normal judicial system. Not sure where that stands, though.

 

Actually, that's not true. The courts have generally upheld arbitration clauses that require arbitration over litigation and which prevent class actions in arbitration or civil suits.

 

Basically, a contract is a contract. If you voluntarily waive those rights, you have to live with the consequences.

[coldflame]

Actually, that's not true. The courts have generally upheld arbitration clauses that require arbitration over litigation and which prevent class actions in arbitration or civil suits.

 

Basically, a contract is a contract. If you voluntarily waive those rights, you have to live with the consequences.

 

There's a bill sponsored by Al Franken to basically vacate those arbitration-first provisions, together with a supreme court hearing (status unknown) about whether this type of clauses are even legal.

[Cuizer2]

No judge is going to find that a contract provision that allows them to change pricing at any time is against public policy. Most judges won't even find a contract provision that waives liability for any negligence to be against public policy. It's a valid contract which everyone agrees to when they book a cruise. You don't have to like it, but the judge isn't going to help you get out of it.

 

I've seen many a contract provision thrown out because it is against public policy. There are many reasons a contract provision can be found invalid. I simply provided one example.