Princess not honoring a 20% discount letter received during a cruise

[TNTLAMB]

I would guess (as an example) the accounting goes something like this:

 

Published Fare:                              $1000.00

20% discount:                                 $  200.00

Additional Discounts lowering

Published fare                                 $ 125.00

 

Net Discount:                                   $   75.00

 

The other option to consider whether the TA is a reseller (most are) in which case the discount is based on what Princess sold the cruise to the TA for.     

[Mike45LC]

21 hours ago, Shmoo here said:

Just a question - while OPs name isn't on the letter the cruise date, ship name, and voyage number the letter was issued on is indicated.  Couldn't they just verify that OP was on that cruise and received a letter?  Making it a valid offer?

Shmoo, for a proposal to be a binding contract, there usually needs to be "consideration", that is, something given up by the person to whom the offer is made.  Sometimes not, if the original offer is in writing.  But this letter from Princess was not supported by any consideration and is likely NOT to be a binding contract.

 

And as already noted, getting into a p!ssiing contest with Princess will not be advantageous to the OP.

[Mike45LC]

19 hours ago, mamkmm2 said:

It has taken us yesterday and most of today but we finally got them to allow us to use the 20% on the booking due in full on Nov.1st.  In the end it isn’t worth much ... it is 20% of the value of the cruise we were given the discount of.  The “value” is a discounted amount.  A total of $75 for both of us.  We still aren’t seeing their math but at a certain point you have to pick your battles, cut your losses, and move on.  It Is the principle of the thing and hopefully our battle will help other passengers from that cruise.

If I remember correctly, the letter said 20% of the fare for the cruise that had the problems, not of the future cruise, and not of the balance still owing on the future cruise.

 

[Mike45LC]

Sorry, I posted my last comments before I finished reading the rest of the thread, before seeing that others had already discussed "consideration."

 

FYI, if there is no consideration, accepting the offer does not create consideration (if the acceptance is not consideration), and the "contract" is still non-binding. 

 

If the OP booked a new cruise in reliance on the offer, "detrimental reliance" might prevent Princess from reneging.  But the OP had a future cruise already booked, and did nothing in reliance.  Anyway, this is not the place for all the issues to be addressed!

 

[MCC retired]

4 hours ago, TNTLAMB said:

I would guess (as an example) the accounting goes something like this:

 

Published Fare:                              $1000.00

20% discount:                                 $  200.00

Additional Discounts lowering

Published fare                                 $ 125.00

 

Net Discount:                                   $   75.00

 

The other option to consider whether the TA is a reseller (most are) in which case the discount is based on what Princess sold the cruise to the TA for.     

 

Most TA's are Resellers ?????

Where do you get that info?

Most every TA does not purchase the cruise from the cruise line at all .

Merely handle the purchase of the cruise  by the client.

Any discounting of the Princess rates is mainly done by rebating part of their commission.

 

[jangor]

On 10/30/2019 at 4:23 PM, 2pbears said:

 

The way I read the letter I believe they are referring to the 20% credit when they say it is non-refundable and non-transferable, not the existing booked cruise itself.

No, it is the existing cruise that would be non-refundable and non-transferable, since that word is after existing cruise and not after Cruise Credit.

 

[Shmoo here]

51 minutes ago, Mike45LC said:

Shmoo, for a proposal to be a binding contract, there usually needs to be "consideration", that is, something given up by the person to whom the offer is made.  Sometimes not, if the original offer is in writing.  But this letter from Princess was not supported by any consideration and is likely NOT to be a binding contract.

 

And as already noted, getting into a p!ssiing contest with Princess will not be advantageous to the OP.

Couldn't the "consideration" be the missed/changed ports?

 

[Daniel A]

45 minutes ago, jangor said:

No, it is the existing cruise that would be non-refundable and non-transferable, since that word is after existing cruise and not after Cruise Credit.

 

It is the credit which is non-refundable and non-transferrable.

[cheeseclan]

I just spoke with my TA who called Princess and got the 20% credit applied to our booking for our already booked cruise in 2021.  We each got the correct amount we were supposed to and there were no problems at all.

[jangor]

24 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

It is the credit which is non-refundable and non-transferrable.

Actually, the wording is so ambiguous as to be meaningless in a court of law.

 

[Daniel A]

27 minutes ago, cheeseclan said:

I just spoke with my TA who called Princess and got the 20% credit applied to our booking for our already booked cruise in 2021.  We each got the correct amount we were supposed to and there were no problems at all.

May I ask how much your FCC was?

[cheeseclan]

It was $505 a person.  That was calculated off the of base cruise fare only.

[Daniel A]

28 minutes ago, jangor said:

Actually, the wording is so ambiguous as to be meaningless in a court of law.

 

This matter isn't going to end up in court anyway so we will never know what would happen.  You never know what can happen - that's why so many frivolous cases get settled with a cash payment.  Lawyers know you cannot predict an outcome with certainty.

[Daniel A]

2 minutes ago, cheeseclan said:

It was $505 a person.  That was calculated off the of base cruise fare only.

Good for you!  That's a lot better than OP's $75 for both. 

[bemis12]

1 hour ago, Shmoo here said:

Couldn't the "consideration" be the missed/changed ports?

 

It couldn’t. That possibility was already addressed in the original contract with princess. And even if that were not so, past consideration is not considered consideration for a new contract.

[Shmoo here]

4 minutes ago, bemis12 said:

It couldn’t. That possibility was already addressed in the original contract with princess. And even if that were not so, past consideration is not considered consideration for a new contract.

OK, thanks.

[mamkmm2]

48 minutes ago, cheeseclan said:

I just spoke with my TA who called Princess and got the 20% credit applied to our booking for our already booked cruise in 2021.  We each got the correct amount we were supposed to and there were no problems at all.

Yep, because after a lot of back and forth we “explained” that going into their system and putting a date in for when an existing cruise was originated was NOT what their offer stated. They were trying to say only cruises purchased after Oct 1 2019 would be allowed as an existing cruise despite their letter stating ANY existing cruise as their letter stated. They wouldn’t even discuss the matter with our TA and didn’t want to discuss it with us. 
 

It wasn’t the amount of the discount, it was their refusal to comply with their own letter. We originated the cruise in over 9 months ago. And payment was due Nov 1. 
 

And even when they finally changed their system to accept the letter as written, they won’t discuss their math.  We took the lowest value of the cruise, minus all discounts, minus a $100 deposit, and the amount they gave us was still half of what they would only semi explain to our TA after the fact. Oh well. As I said, it wasn’t the amount but the failure to follow terms they themselves had outlined in the letter. They corrected their failure. 
 

But it is not a “pissing contest” to advocate for yourself. Or to demand a merchant or service provider comply with terms they put in writing. 

[mamkmm2]

23 minutes ago, bemis12 said:

It couldn’t. That possibility was already addressed in the original contract with princess. And even if that were not so, past consideration is not considered consideration for a new contract.

 There is some wiggle room there. It can be viewed at Princess was altering the original contract. And even with a new contract view, the consideration was the value of the cruise as a discount as applied to an existing cruise. Princess is in a better position if they would only apply it to new cruises not yet booked but that wasn’t the case here. 

[leck57]

21 minutes ago, mamkmm2 said:

 

But it is not a “pissing contest” to advocate for yourself. Or to demand a merchant or service provider comply with terms they put in writing. 

 

I agree and some of the "bush lawyer" comments in here are mind boggling. Forget the rubbish about contracts and the like, the letter the passengers received was quite clear and there is no need to look for loopholes or left field interpretations. 

[cheeseclan]

53 minutes ago, mamkmm2 said:

Yep, because after a lot of back and forth we “explained” that going into their system and putting a date in for when an existing cruise was originated was NOT what their offer stated. They were trying to say only cruises purchased after Oct 1 2019 would be allowed as an existing cruise despite their letter stating ANY existing cruise as their letter stated. They wouldn’t even discuss the matter with our TA and didn’t want to discuss it with us. 
 

It wasn’t the amount of the discount, it was their refusal to comply with their own letter. We originated the cruise in over 9 months ago. And payment was due Nov 1. 
 

And even when they finally changed their system to accept the letter as written, they won’t discuss their math.  We took the lowest value of the cruise, minus all discounts, minus a $100 deposit, and the amount they gave us was still half of what they would only semi explain to our TA after the fact. Oh well. As I said, it wasn’t the amount but the failure to follow terms they themselves had outlined in the letter. They corrected their failure. 
 

But it is not a “pissing contest” to advocate for yourself. Or to demand a merchant or service provider comply with terms they put in writing. 

I guess I don’t understand something. How can you only get $75??  
We figured out the amount due while on the ship since I had paperwork to show me what the basic cruise fare was.  When I got home from the cruise I saw that credited amount in our cruise personalizer immediately saying it was a voyage goodwill credit.  
I don’t think it has anything to do with you paving the way.  My agent got a hold of someone that knows what the heck they are doing at Princess.  She said he saw the credit in our profile and that was it.

 

this of course is IMHO

 

[Doubt It]

Why bother with Princess?

 

Move on and try another cruise line or try other vacation options.

 

Based on the escalating number of posts on CC of cruise lines not honouring future cruise credits etc - why are so many posters going back to the same well?

 

To get your "voyage goodwill credit" you have to spend big $.

 

Everyone who does this simply rewards poor service provider performance.

[jangor]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

This matter isn't going to end up in court anyway so we will never know what would happen.  You never know what can happen - that's why so many frivolous cases get settled with a cash payment.  Lawyers know you cannot predict an outcome with certainty.

Totally agree and it is obvious that this letter was not a form letter composed by a lawyer.  Probably generated by the cruise officers or someone in headquarters. 

[Mike45LC]

3 hours ago, jangor said:

No, it is the existing cruise that would be non-refundable and non-transferable, since that word is after existing cruise and not after Cruise Credit.

 

“The credit may be applied to ... any existing booking not yet paid in full and is non-refundable and non-transferrable.”   This states that the CREDIT is non-refundable and non-transferrable.  The use of the words “and is” is clear.  If Princess meant that the credit could be applied only to existing bookings that are non-transferrable and non-refundable, instead of “and is”, Princess would have said “which is”.  

 

[Mike45LC]

2 hours ago, jangor said:

Actually, the wording is so ambiguous as to be meaningless in a court of law.

 

Absolutely not.  I cannot find any ambiguity whatsoever in the language under discussion.

[Mike45LC]

3 hours ago, Shmoo here said:

Couldn't the "consideration" be the missed/changed ports?

 

No, the missed or changed ports was in the past.  If the passage contract gave the passengers some rights when the ship changed itinerary, OK, giving up those rights would be consideration, but the passage contract clearly gives passengers no such rights.