Excellent analysis and eloquence. You're a real asset to the board.

Ditto. One of the best posts I've read on this board.

Thank you KiraNarise for a very informative and analytical post on this subject.

To date there have been a number of debates on these boards about the morality of taking advantage of cheap rates when and if they arise (and however they arise), however your post illustrates that there is another dimension to these types of consumer affairs and that is when firms use underhand tactics to milk clients of their funds unscrupulously.

In this case there appears to be the basic elements of a 'bait and switch' tactic. There is certainly no morality in such actions. I think your approach of confirming the reservation in a polite and non-confrontational way is a wise approach and readers of these boards would do well to study it carefully. I would only add that it is important that any such confirmation is in writing as you then have some hard evidence should a dispute arise.

I hope that when the airlines passenegers bill is examined by Congress some consideration is given to providing a greater degree of certainty to consumers and merchants alike with respect to the issue of online advertised specials of this type. All that is required is a simple set of ground rules that is presented to consumers and governs the conduct of consumers and merchants in online transactions. I do not think any reasonable consumer of merchant would object to such a framework.

To some extent existing consumer legislation may cover this already, however such legislation may vary from state to state. Given the cross-jurisdictional nature of internet commerce, a Federal legislative framework providing certainty for consumers and merchants alike is required.

cheers Peter

Of course this has turned out to be a classic case of "bait and switch", but it appears to be equally a case of "if it is too good to be true, be careful". In a way, I say a pox on both your houses. Hilton MEX Airport should be severely dealt with by the folks in London at Ladbrooke, the parent company of Hilton International. As this appears to be a regular occurance, and likely results in a shakedown upon check-out, in a country notorious for such things, there can be no excuse for not disciplining the franchisee. But anyone who really believed they would be getting a free room is equally culpable. Caveat Emptor.

And I do not believe that Hilton International operates franchises. While properties may be own by other companies and investor groups, the actual hotels are managed by Hilton International employees. Is this not the case? Which would make that company somewhat suspect, or very lax in overseeing their Mexico City staff.

They (guest relations) told me that they'll give a $50 rate to all who had reservation for the first THREE days of such reservations only, and that after that it will be at prevailing rates, and there will be no other concessions. They also told me that they had spoken to a Wall Street Journal Reporter and informed her of this decision. Hmmm...

Narise, nice job.

This sounds like similar problems I have had on Travelocity and Expedia. On several times, I have searched and rental car rates of $0.00/day, and I have also obtained rates of $5000.00/day, yikes!

Even though I obtained rates of $0.00, I would be a fool to try and book it. I know the rate is an error and because I travel and book reservations a lot, I also SHOULD KNOW that it is in error. If you KNOW a rate is incorrect, you cannot expect the reservation to be honored. I also don't think you would have any grounds to complain.

On the other hand....

A person who does not travel often and DOES NOT KNOW the rate is incorrect, might be able to get the rate honored because they believed it would be honored. I base my statement on what my brother-in-law, who is a California product liability attorney, told me. He said that in court, a person that is ignorant of product misuse stands a much better chance of winning than a person who knew or should have known that they were misusing a product.

So, if you know the rate is wrong, I conclude their is no consideration for the other party and therefore no contract.

Dear Aubie,

Your B- in - Law is probably correct re product liabillity issues, but such is not the case herein. There is no instrumentality that caused any harm.


In this situation, contract principles would be operative, and unilateral mistake as to contracting would problably obtain.

However, that being said, there are certain suspicious facts as to the frequencly of this happening many times at this hotel. they would not have such a defense if this was the case.

If you are interested, you should read the great panoply of views on this issue under the similar thread initiated by GUAVA, here in the BUZZ!
Enjoy!

I was of the understanding that ignorance plays no role in court decisions, as ignorance is not an acceptable excuse. I think in this case, it is switch and bait as it happens often enough and the hotel is making money out of error often. Secondly, the parent company, Hilton Intl. seems to take no action from allowing the error to repeat itself over and over.

Correct re Bait and Switch,partly correct re ignorance of the law. It is not a defense in CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS/CASES, not civil cases, as a contract dispute, undeiably is.

Hope this helps to clarify. As noted, this hotel seems to be owned by those who business practices are none to kosher.

I am a bit hesitant of coming back to this thread but I guess there is one very important piece of information that I need to add to this thread.

Although the rate quoted was $0 per room. But, on the contract, it does state that an extra person would cost $25USD per person. Therefore, there is indeed a monetary value associated if one wishes to do so. That means, if 3 people occupy the room, the room rate is actually $25 per night + taxes. Therefore, one can book for 10 nights at this rate and had that 3rd person paying for his/her own charge so the room would still be free 'technically' for the two people originally booked in the room. I have a copy of the contract on my hands right now and I am not making this piece of information up. I have been contacted by the Wall Street Journalist and I guess I will inform her of this piece of information. I am not familiar with U.S. Laws, so how does this piece of info can possibly affect the outcome of lawsuit?

I am not a lawyer and this sounds like a case for a lawyers advice. Doc2Be, I think Switch and Bait may be a criminal act, therefore reinforcing my prior post. If you made your reservation in the US and the Hiltion server is located in the US, then I would think (but do not know) that you may be able to avail of US law. For those of you effected, maybe call your state attorney general and ask for advice.

JRF --

Very good point, I had not thought about that! Unfortunately, as you can no doubt appreciate, my connections with the law are not as strong as they once were, nor were they involved in this sort of thing.

Moreover, the law concerning jurisdiction, be it for civil or criminal matters, I think is quite unsettled at this moment, and that directly impacts the issue of the "place" where this act had been carried out.

Indeed, it is likely that multiple jurisdictions are involved, and that entails a conflict of laws analysis -- a hellish issue, if there ever was one!!

In addition, we are not talking about a massive fraud, nor is it clear that that term is even appropriate herein, and I very much doubt that any State Attorney General would become involved in this matter.

My own viewpoint:

The offer of $50/night is quite generous and one should accept it if they are interested, as I doubt very much you will get anything better. As I have said in numerous posts earlier, I think that anyone expecting a $0 room rate, when other reservations clearly were apparent and showed rooms for $X, will be a nonstarter.

I doubt very many people will take up this offer for $50, as a sojourn at the Mex City airport in the summer (?) does not sound all too enticing!!!

I agree, that they should be disciplined and have their franchise terminated, but one must remember the term "Caveat Emptor."

Finally, I feel sorry for US Hilton, as it would appear that it is Hilton International that has dropped the ball on this one (they are separate companies), but it would seem that many if not most of those so affected (North Americans) probably have complained and have sought some form of relief from the US company, which it would appear, to have no influence over this franchisee. They are simply left holding the bag of bad recriminations.

I doubt very much that a WSJ "expose," if there even is one, will amount to much, because this situation is very much different IMHO, than the United matter, wherein a number of posters have incisively noted, that United had dug its own grave by charging the credit cards of those so affected, for a full fare without any prior authorization!!!!

In the instant matter, Hilton has made a reasonable offer to end this problem.

But, hey, I was wrong on the United matter, so who knows???????????? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

According to the director of guest relations for Hilton USA, the mexico city Hilton is under the control and management of Hilton USA, and NOT Hilton International.

If the rate is misquoted intentionally, then shame on them. But, like I said happens to me on Travelocity and Expedia, you get a $0.00/rate, I think that is a true computer glitch(like with the $20-$50 airfares a few weeks ago that some on hear booked). The airfares were less than the taxes which would mean that the airline would have to pay more in taxes than they collected in fares. I think that even if the airline intentionally posted such a fare, the airline would be subject to anti-trust violations for selling a ticket at a loss.