But that isn’t, so far as I know, how contracts work. If DVC says there will be a pool in the contract and they dig a one foot round hole in the ground and pour in chlorinated water and say “here’s your pool”, that’s false and misleading to a “reasonable person’s expectation”. They told me they don’t allow commercial business or activity. Because they don’t further define what that is, I can make a reasonable assumption. None of us are lawyers, I keep saying that because you are very much “it’s in the contract so it’s good”, but contract law exists for this very reason. People get sued over “ironclad” contracts every day and lose.
Oh I know people get sued and lose. And yes, I do use the contract because that is at least where it starts.
When you fight a contract, you at least have to be able to tie it to how it’s being violated
Isn’t that the hard part of interpretation?
If your interpretation into what makes someone using a membership for personal use is not the same as mine, then you have to go back to the contract to tease it out to find which pieces can be used as support that it is or is not.
Saying well, this is evidence that people are violating their contracts and using DVC ownership as a commercial enterprise, you have to be able to point to what actions make it that in relation to the contract.
That is why I come back to the intent and main language in the contract because that tells me what my rights are and not what they are not.
So, when someone says we shouldn’t be allowed to use a broker to rent, I say that the clause that says we don’t need DVD or DVC approval disputes that. Now, I could be wrong but at least I have something from my contract to tie my interpretation to in the contract.
Take spec renting…some want it stopped and think that act is not reasonable under the a personal use definition.
I disagree because my opinion of what it takes to shift from personal use to commercial enterprise is a much higher standard then others. And, we both agree that the ultimate one to determine that is DVC.
The other thing to wonder about, when you mention misleading is whether the marketing pushes what the purpose is and not what it is not.
If they say the main purpose is personal use and enjoyment, spend a lot of time discussing that and warning not to buy as an investment, then wouldn’t the logical jump be that the definition of personal use is what is being marketed?
I can see the other side of the coin, though, to your point, that DVCs potential broad definition of personal use, and lax definition of commercial enterprise isn’t what was promised.
But, one would sitll need to tie back to something in the contract that the product in practice is not what was promised.
And, to do that, you would be fighting them about what others are doing and not everyone is going to agree that certain actions should not be under the rules of personal use.
Now, I definitely think owners running a business to rent their own points seems reasonable to be prohibited. But not that rental brokers should be stopped in helping owners rent their points.
As I said, I really think most of what DVC is allowing to happen in the rental market is reasonable to balance rights of owners to rent.
However, I’m still taking the time to get clarification about it.