Is a reservation valid if it contradicts rate rules?
 

These are the rate rules for Leisure Links.. however I was searching rates for a one night stay which happens to be a Monday night.. The rules state that it must be a Thur, Fri, Sat, or Sun night stay over.. no mention of monday night..

Will the hotel still honor this rate?



rate rules
Guarantee Policy
A CREDIT CARD NUMBER IS REQUIRED TO CONFIRM OR GUARANTEE YOUR RESERVATION
Cancellation Policy
CANCELLATION PERMITTED
- BEFORE 1800 DAY OF ARRIVAL
60.46 USD CXL FEE
RateInformation
I.D. REQUIRED AT CHECK-IN
Rate Information
LEISURE LINKS
MINIMUM 10 PERCENT DISCOUNT OFF OF WEEKEND RATE AND
DOES NOT INCLUDE TAX
SEE HOTEL CANCELLATION POLICY FOR DETAILS
ONLY AVAILABLE FOR STAYS THURSDAY THROUGH SUNDAY
CAN ONLY ARRIVE ON THURSDAY, FRIDAY, OR SATURDAY
THURSDAY REQUIRES A FRIDAY NIGHT STAYOVER
SUNDAY REQUIRES A SATURDAY NIGHT STAYOVER
ID IS REQUIRED UPON CHECK IN
Tax Information
CURRENCY RATES QUOTED IN USD - US DOLLAR AND EXCLUDE TAXES
TAX 13.850 PCT/ROOM PER NIGHT

I'll venture to say that they will NOT honor it.
Two reasons...One, the rules specifically state what days ARE allowed, logically, one can assume that the other days are not. The other, is that I believe they will list all available rates without determining if what you're booking will qualify or not.

Not so fast... If the reservation is being made over the internet which it apparantly is...and the reservation is ACCEPTED for the date inputted...then the OP has a very strong case at the front desk if he questioned at all. I'd risk it...make the reservation...and bet that he doesn't get questioned at all.

I totally agree. People booking on the internet aren't required to read the rate rules to ensure that their reservations obey all the rules. If the system accepts it, that's all I need to know! I've never had a problem.

If Marriott -- or another hotel chain -- wants to limit the nights that a rate is valid, then they shouldn't load that rate into the system on ineligible nights. If they do their job, I won't have to do it for them!

Bruce

Hmm -- interesting question. My corporate travel site forces you to check the "I have read and understand the rate rules" box before proceeding, which I have once or twice, but the marriott site has no such requirement. The rules are printed on your reservation statment and are available via a link when the rates are shown - I'll leave it to the lawyers/Marriott reps to define what is "required" on a user's part.

I know that ignorance is not a valid defense in the legal arena, but this seems a bit fuzzy.

I certainly agree that Marriott screwed up making a rate available that violates the rules for that rate, and I can't imagine them trying to enforce it (unless, of course, you post all over the web that you know in advance your reservation violates the rules ;) )

I think that sometimes the property makes the rate available where it wouldn't normally be according to the rules, because it is to the property's advantage (i.e., low occupancy). It seems to me that if the reservation is accepted it will be honored. However, in such circumstances I have always called the property in advance to double check. In every instance I was told the rate would be honored (and I, of course, kept a record of the name of the person I spoke to).

My experience is that if it is showing, it is acceptable. One example I have, is the timeshares here in Orlando have an M11 rate. Read the terms and conditions and it says its only valid May 16- July 14, 2003. But whenever they have high availability, it shows, and I use it.

Just my 2 cents.

thanks everyone.. I think i'll take a chance.. besides I'll check in prior to my 6 p.m. deadline leaving me time to CX if they don't honor it and find something else if I need to

I suspect that you could walk away at any time -- even after 6 p.m. -- if they refuse to honor your reserved rate. Under those circumstances, you should be able to get the cancellation fee waived.

Another thought: Lately, Marriott has been sending out emails confirming upcoming reservations. Those emails include the rate. If you bring that along, it would certainly strengthen your position.

Bruce

I'm sure it would be fine. I had a reservation booked through Marriott.com and it pulled up the BA rate...but after a couple more searches, it pulled up a weekend rate on the website. I didn't realize until later, but the hotel didn't say a thing. I mean, you put in the dates and if the website pulls it up and gives you a confirmation number...you assume it is fine, right? It's not like you did anything to work the system.

If the rate is booked and guaranteed online, then the hotel must honour the rate. If not, call the manager to the front desk and complain nicely.

I'm not an attorney but it seems to me that if you've received an email confirmation which includes that rate (the ones you receive after booking online always do), they've accepted and are bound to the terms contained on it.

Particularly, if there's any sort of controversay about it, you've brought it with you and present it if asked to do so.

Apparently Starwood disagrees with you.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=421244

To be honest, I didn't even attempt to read from beginning to end all of the 610 posts that make up that thread.

But the final one (as of this writing, number 610, is revealing-

So, they apparently honored it, at least for the above poster.

Starwood and Marriott may well take different views on this, I don't know.

If the hotel was corporate-owned as opposed to being a franchisee, I suppose that could be a factor in how they handled it.

The fact that the St. Regis is in Britain; the Marriott in question is domestic may play into it as well - who knows.

"Winning" by not accepting what's a confirmed rate (even though it's obviously a ridiculous one) probably would cost more in good will than what would be gained by not honoring it.

The customer could claim something along the lines that that rate enabled him to take a trip that otherwise would be unaffordable.

Or, they could claim they assumed it was some kind of promotion (actually I've seen hotels roll back prices drastically when they're celebrating some sort of "anniversary" along the lines of granting whatever their prices were on their opening day to anyone who was born on it, married on it etc. etc.i

It's the kind of thing that could very likely hit the press and result in embarrassment and bad publicity for the "big" company's behavior toward the "common-man" customer.

If I were the hotel's I'd gulp and accept that a mistake was made (by the company - not the customer) and use it as a lesson that not properly proofing an offer before it's "published" or "offered" can be a costly mistake.

The thread contains lots of posts, but is an entertaining read. To sum up the thread:

1. Many FTers made reservations at the Starwood website for a too good to be true offer at the Lanesborough in London.

2. Eventually the Lanesborough contacted all who made a reservation and informed them that a mistake had been made and the reservation would not be honored.

3. A boatload (or 747 load) of FTers complained to the Lanesborough, SPG/Starwood, and a third party booking website where some of the folks made reservations rather than at Starwood. (I think Travelocity or maybe Orbitz) .

4. Eventually the third party booker informed all those who made the reservation at their website that even though the property would not provide the room for the reserved stay at the reserved price, the third party booker would reimburse its customers for any charges by the property over and above the reserved price.

5. Facing this humiliation, the Lanesborough recontacted those who booked directly through Starwood, and offered a short term stay, without the perks that were part of the original offer and gave a certain period of time to either accept the offer or face cancellation of the reservation.

6. Some folks, including the one you cite, accepted the Lanesborough's offer and, therefore gave up various perks included in the original offer and the right to make a reservation for longer than the minimal amount of days included in the Lanesborough's final offer.

I'm recalling this from memory and so while the general outline above is accurate, I am not certain of every detail.