DC4MS

Here is a question for debate:

What happens to the "original" contract when a member joins a particular destination club and then that club is merged or bought by another club?

In other words, is it fair to keep special exclusions or benefits for a few members that have special riders on their contracts or should those evaporate and the member be forced into a choice of options with the new club?

There are three ways to discuss this:
1. The opinion from a member perspective
2. The opinion from the original destination club
3. The opinion from the new destination club

I am sure all DC members want to keep their original terms of their contracts no matter what happens in the future, but is this a reasonable request?

I am sure all DC companies want to delete any special riders and only have a few different membership categories, but is this reasonable?

ASIADCMEMBER

If you are the weaker club--like LRW was, then you end up with the terms of the stronger club. In the case of LRW, many people joined because the original dues were US$15,000 for unlimited use based on 4 reservations outstanding at one time and the promise of global portfolio of homes and Deposit Insurance.

In return for joining Quintess for at least one year, LRW members got put into a 30 day Charter Unlimited program. Also Quintess did offer to sweeten the pot with a lower space available rate that looking back is a great bargain.

In all honesty, however, the Quintess homes were and are still much better than the LRW homes ever were, and if we had to choose today, I think the variety of destinations and quality of the big homes--I would choose to join Quintess over LRW especially if the number of homes and destinations became static and stopped growing. For example having one home in a location is just not a good idea, especially if it is popular. So in their most popular destinations Quintess has something like 4-8 homes so that your chances of getting into the home sometime during the year are quite high. maybe not the specific home that you want but you can get into
Aspen, Deer Valley, Cabo, New York, Napa--on the other hand, you couldn't get into Tuscany for over a year--thus necessitating buying another home.

So in conclusion, if you are the weaker club--consider yourself lucky to be merged--especially if they are fair, the downside is "liquidation" which happened to a T&H friend who got pennies on the dollar.

TravelGuy

I'm not a lawyer, I only play one on this forum. My best guess is that every instance would be determined by:
A) The latitude for change/cancellation in the original contracts.
B) The general passiveness of the current members of either club (discontent breeds revolt).
C) The degree of changes in the member benefits (change is inevitable ... embrace change)
D) The quality of the attorneys and public relations people involved (to sugar coat changes and schmooze the members)
E) And so on ...

It's like any biz/legal event where the outcome is controlled by the players involved, regardless of the existing contracts.

Kagehitokiri

ASIADCMEMBER,

former LRW members do not receive unlimited use at no additional fee like they did with LRW though, correct?

ASIADCMEMBER

Correct, we are now considered Charter 30 day unlimited with space available for a few. Actually, for the quality of the Quintess homes across the board--I think that was a fair deal.