I'll never understand why FT always cheers for Goliath. Why do so many people support multi-million $ companies when they mislead customers?
The problem for this hotel is that "All Inclusive" has a commonly understood definition in this industry. That does carry weight. If they offered "all inclusive" (as commonly understood) and you accepted, then a contract/agreement has been formed and they cannot change terms without your consent unless such changes are permitted in the existing agreement.
The problem for OP is that there isn't much you can do to force them to honor "all inclusive" aside from legal action ... and that's probably not worthwhile. To be clear, you have a case whether the detailed description specifies limited "inclusions" or not (just might not be a strong case). This will vary by legal juridsiction.
In principle I agree however if the OP can’t show in writing what the “all inclusive” actually entails there is no case.
yes, there can be an assumption in what it means, an all inclusive resort would provide 3 meals a day, maybe drinks etc. But then an all inclusive cruise still offers additions for an alcohol package etc. So unless at booking the all inclusive has been defined and agreed by the hotel, it is merely an assumption by the OP and we all know that assumptions are the mother of all f*ck*ps.
Should the hotel have been clear on what the all inclusive rate means, sure. (And maybe they were, but we have not seen any proof from the OP),
when the OP asked, they got a response that was not in line with their expectation… again if the expectation was not confirmed by something written the expectation was wrong.
Globalist