Anyone ever actually read the "Cruise Ticket Contract"?

Started my online check-in the other day -- checked us all in (except pictures), set up the credit card, then came to the

Cruise ticket contract. After everything I've been reading, I decided I wanted to actually read the document, & not just blindly check off yes.

Since it's very difficult to read off a screen the way they have it set up (small box, you have to keep scrolling, pale grey color), I decided to copy & paste into a word document, change the print to black & print it out.

Brought it home (even in the tiny font, it was 10 pages) & gave to DH -- he started to read it, then started to laugh.

He had gotten to the part about what's not allowed on the ship,(drugs, firearms, etc) & which also included animals, but that part had an exception ("see 12-D").

He went to section 12-D-- that part is about pregnant women & infants!! Section 12-E references service dogs (which is what I assume they were referring to).

He's trying to figure out who to call to ask why pregnant women & infants are referenced in the "exception to animals being brought on board".:'):'):')

Yes...and it says the cruise line really has NO responsibility at all for anything!

Yes...and it says the cruise line really has NO responsibility at all for anything!

That's what I was actually expecting to read -- the other just gave us a chuckle....

Did you read the part that says if the cruise line agrees to any sort of court action at all it must be in a court in Florida? You can imagine why they insist on that one.

Nope. I've been to lots of loan closings. One attorney would hand the buyers a deed of trust and tell them to read it over, but basically it said "if you don't pay, you don't stay."

and, if you want to read it, I will be back in 20 minutes. And, by the way, you can't change anything in it anyway...

and, if you want to read it, I will be back in 20 minutes. And, by the way, you can't change anything in it anyway...

Not only that, but any errors in the contract are usually resolved in favor of the party that drafted it under the principles of equity. These are called contracts of adhesion aka take-it-or-leave-it.

When I took the all access tour on Allure a few years ago I had to sign a wavier that released RC from liability for all damages occurring - and I quote - "from the beginning of the world to the end of time."

Depending on your perspective, these contracts are either amusing or good for insomnia.

I've read it in the past. I recall having the impression that it was vague and poorly drafted.

Regarding any ambiguities though, a Court would most likely look to the four corners of the document to try to determine the intent of the parties (in this case, just RCI's intent). Failing that, my understanding is that ambiguities are generally construed against the draftor (i.e. the party that wrote the contract) as it was their responsibility to properly draft the contract.

I've read it in the past. I recall having the impression that it was vague and poorly drafted.

 

Regarding any ambiguities though, a Court would most likely look to the four corners of the document to try to determine the intent of the parties (in this case, just RCI's intent). Failing that, my understanding is that ambiguities are generally construed against the draftor (i.e. the party that wrote the contract) as it was their responsibility to properly draft the contract.

Lawyer-speak makes my head hurt.

I really like what you've done with your hair Carol.

Yes

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Started my online check-in the other day -- checked us all in (except pictures), set up the credit card, then came to the

Cruise ticket contract. After everything I've been reading, I decided I wanted to actually read the document, & not just blindly check off yes.

Since it's very difficult to read off a screen the way they have it set up (small box, you have to keep scrolling, pale grey color), I decided to copy & paste into a word document, change the print to black & print it out.

Brought it home (even in the tiny font, it was 10 pages) & gave to DH -- he started to read it, then started to laugh.

He had gotten to the part about what's not allowed on the ship,(drugs, firearms, etc) & which also included animals, but that part had an exception ("see 12-D").

He went to section 12-D-- that part is about pregnant women & infants!! Section 12-E references service dogs (which is what I assume they were referring to).

He's trying to figure out who to call to ask why pregnant women & infants are referenced in the "exception to animals being brought on board".:'):'):')

Maybe they meant "Mammals" section...

LOL. Can't help the lawyer speak sometimes - especially when talking about a contract. At least I didn't toss in any Latin phrases.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Lawyer-speak makes my head hurt.

 

Must say, " You have really nice, white teeth."

I suspect the only people who have actually read the whole thing are the $500/hour attorneys who drafted it in the first place. Or those with extreme insomnia.

I don't consider these contracts. They are indentures. Author has all the rights, including the right to change the terms at will.

I read, OK maybe skimmed, the contract for the first cruise I took. Now I am a little more cavalier.

I read the closing documents when I bought and sold my house, too.

Call me thorough.

Vicki

The first cruise I went on w/NCL I read most of it. My then girlfriend now wife laughed at me. In the part about prohibited items it said something about prescriptions that was worded so broadly I remember thinking that my glasses were prohibited.

On a more serious note the recent bus accident in Costa Maya had me wondering what RC might be liable for. I did some looking and actually learned quite a bit. Also read some very sad stories of people whose vacations were struck by some horrific tragedies.

I've read it in the past. I recall having the impression that it was vague and poorly drafted.

 

Regarding any ambiguities though, a Court would most likely look to the four corners of the document to try to determine the intent of the parties (in this case, just RCI's intent). Failing that, my understanding is that ambiguities are generally construed against the draftor (i.e. the party that wrote the contract) as it was their responsibility to properly draft the contract.

That is the general rule except for contracts of adhesion, where the cruise passenger has no intent other than to agree with the contract (take it or leave it with no ability to negotiate). There is no "meeting of the minds" as is usually the case in contract law.

Also there is most likely an arbitration clause to prevent it from getting into court anyway.

In these cases, to win a breach of contract suit, the plaintiff would need to prove reliance on a meaningful and significant contract clause and that the damages resulted from that reliance. Most likely the arbitrator would also want to know why hundreds of thousands of other people have agreed to the exact same contract without having the same reliance problems. So no it wouldn't necessarily be construed against the draftor.

Contracts are great until you try to enforce them. :)