Originally Posted by
joshua362
Outside room noise is one of my pet peeves. Isn't there an basic understanding or premise that a room for sleeping should be offered as such and free from audible distraction? I'm sure there is some legal terminogoly here regarding "warrenty for purpose", I just can't remember back 20 years to my business law classes.
I wouldn't give up so easy if this is the case, especially for $700. Can the property give you any assurances that precautions have been taken, i.e. double pained windows like airport hotels do?
Also, it may behoove you to bring along some "white noise" to mask the sounds. I play a 20 minute file on my laptop over and over all night when I'm worried about getting uninterupted sleep. I could send it to you. Another option is find a blank channel on the TV or pull the cable wire out.
How crazy is it that we are supposed to do research and know all of hotels "secrets" in advance, without ever having set foot in the place first?
To me, this case has almost nothing to do with a noise issue and almost everything to do with the OP not wanting to be bound by the terms of nonrefundable room rates they agreed upon. But let's say it wasn't the noise, but rather a lack of a pool, for example, that caused a reconsideration of a booked stay, would that be any different? Non-refundable means just that without loopholes, clauses or conditions. FWIW, I don't find Marriott's website deceptive in how it labels these restrictive room rates.
If the $700 means that much, would 2 minutes scanning reviews on tripadvisor.com be too much to verify what other recent guests are saying about a particular location? I wouldn't spend too much time checking out a one night airport hotel stay, for example, for $49/night but sure would for a$700 total hotel bill. It's still caveat emptor, let the buyer beware.