Old Oct 24, 18, 11:19 am
Join Date: Feb 2017
Programs: DL DM, UA Gold, Alaska MVP, Bonvoy (lol) Ambassador
Posts: 1,934
Originally Posted by LennartH View Post
If the Cosmo was excluded from all other benefits, should the paragraph

not say

IANAL but isnít this an important difference in meaning and legal interpretation?
I agree 100% that it is confusing for a casual reader and I would fully support the change that you referenced because it would make it much clearer. Unfortunately a close legal interpretation would strongly lead it to be interpreted as it not being a participating property because:
  • The purpose of the section is to define which properties participate and do not participate and the Cosmopolitan is highlighted as non-participating
  • All other sections highlight that the property does not participate and then highlights the exceptions to that rule (what benefits do apply)
In terms of being consistent, the only reasonable interpretation is that the Cosmopolitan is non-participating except for the exclusions listed (earn points and redeem nights). This follows the intent and purpose of the section and matches the structure of the rest of the section. You would need clear overriding language to override the default and consistent interpretation in context of the rest of the section. It is poorly worded but to the intent of the Cosmopolitan section is clear in context of the section.

Don't get me wrong, it's stupid, the exclusion is stupid, and the T&Cs are a maze of nonsense that is hard to follow. But it is what it is.
ethernal is online now  
Reply With Quote