How to Use Your Current Travel Package Certificate Prior to 8/18

Reply

Old Aug 17, 18, 10:30 am
  #91  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BOS/UTH
Programs: AA LT PLT & 4.28 MM, QR PLT, SPG LT PLT
Posts: 11,221
Originally Posted by rny321 View Post
Which is part of the problem with communication through travel forums and bloggers instead of providing information directly to customers or putting new information in the Terms and Conditions.
Completely agree.


Originally Posted by dsquared37 View Post
As Marriott hasn't released to new T&Cs all people have to rely upon is the mostly spurious chatter offered by agents. It's impossible to judge what the restrictions will be moving forward unless you're Carnac.
Originally Posted by OssianBlue View Post
The terms and conditions are silent. CSRs are speaking as agents of Marriott Corporation. That is not an inconsequential problem for them.
I agree that it's not an inconsequential problem for Marriott, but I think that the takeaway here is that Marriott, for whatever reason, has decided not to release the information yet. Any statements by employees concerning embargoed, non-public information could well be (is likely to be) considered employee misconduct, potentially subjecting the employee to some type of internal discipline.

The CSRs are not "agents" in the legal sense of the word. I doubt that there are a lot of frontline, customer facing employees (or phone agents) who have legal authority to bind the corporation.

Here are the Ts & Cs. See, in particular, paragraph 5 under General Membership. Marriott can pretty much do what it wants. Also note that employees may participate in the Rewards program.
Dr. HFH is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 18, 10:41 am
  #92  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 230
Originally Posted by Dr. HFH View Post
The CSRs are not "agents" in the legal sense of the word. I doubt that there are a lot of frontline, customer facing employees (or phone agents) who have legal authority to bind the corporation.
All employees are agents of the principal who employs them.
OssianBlue is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 18, 10:49 am
  #93  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,318
Originally Posted by SC Alum View Post
I am a LT Plat but first time redeeming Hotel and flight package today. I was advised by a KL Marriott customer service agent that there will be no extension of validity after the 1 year. Is this the new rule? Or is the CS agent misinformed?

Also, the 1 year validity period means I should have made the reservation within a year or I should have stayed the 7 nights within the year?

Appreciate any info. Thanks.
Seems the on extension is among the latest rules which are communicated to the public via the SPG social media team member started the very thread you posted on.

I believe the stay must be completed by the expiration date of the cert. In other words, the last day you can check out is the date of the expiration date, in order for the cert remains valid to cover your stay.
Happy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 18, 11:15 am
  #94  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BOS/UTH
Programs: AA LT PLT & 4.28 MM, QR PLT, SPG LT PLT
Posts: 11,221
Originally Posted by OssianBlue View Post
All employees are agents of the principal who employs them.
In common parlance, sure. In the legal sense, and specifically addressing the question of whether all employees have the ability to bind their employers legally, no, not even close. The law of agency is much more complex and nuanced than that.
Dr. HFH is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 18, 11:59 am
  #95  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SJC/SFO
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by mgchan View Post
The package is already attached to a reservation but now I'm thinking the package will just be worth 45k points and I'd have to make up the difference between a regular point stay (420k points) so an extra 100k or so.

Maybe I'll try one more time today, the problem is now that I made a request to transfer points from my SPG to my wife's SPG account for the upgrade on 7/31 and it still hasn't gone through. I could move Ultimate Rewards points over but then I'd have a bunch of left over Marriott points, and that would be a pretty significant devaluation for me (I would rather use the points at a Park Hyatt). It's worth 90k SPG points, but not the 270k UR points.

I get that sometimes the reps don't know all the rules but we got the whole gamut of possibilities--no problem to upgrade, differing upgrade costs, can't upgrade to Ritz, upgrade later after merger, oh but you can't upgrade after the merger.
I suggest you call it today. If the agent say no, don't argue just HUCA. Today might be your last chance. You can also pm Lurker with your info.
khlay is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 18, 12:38 pm
  #96  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 230
Originally Posted by Dr. HFH View Post
In common parlance, sure. In the legal sense, and specifically addressing the question of whether all employees have the ability to bind their employers legally, no, not even close. The law of agency is much more complex and nuanced than that.
The ability to bind the principal is complex and nuanced--but it is black letter law that an employee is, legally, an agent.
OssianBlue is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 18, 12:48 pm
  #97  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: New York
Programs: MPG-Plat. Prem. , HH-Diam., HGP-Expl., Accor-Plat., Former FPC-Plat.
Posts: 537
Originally Posted by OssianBlue View Post
The ability to bind the principal is complex and nuanced--but it is black letter law that an employee is, legally, an agent.
If a reasonable person would believe that an employee had apparent authority, even if the employee didn't have actual authority, the principal can still be bound by its agents actions. Where apparent authority exists isn't something that we are all likely to agree on.
rny321 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 18, 12:55 pm
  #98  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 230
Originally Posted by rny321 View Post
If a reasonable person would believe that an employee had apparent authority, even if the employee didn't have actual authority, the principal can still be bound by its agents actions. Where apparent authority exists isn't something that we are all likely to agree on.
Yep. Of such confusion lawsuits are made.
OssianBlue is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 18, 1:05 pm
  #99  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BOS/UTH
Programs: AA LT PLT & 4.28 MM, QR PLT, SPG LT PLT
Posts: 11,221
Originally Posted by OssianBlue View Post
The ability to bind the principal is complex and nuanced--but it is black letter law that an employee is, legally, an agent.
You're simply incorrect. But unless you can cite some authority for what you suggest, I'm not going to argue with you any more. All employees do not have the authority to bind their employers. In fact, relatively few do. An employee can only bind his/her employer if the employee has actual or apparent authority to do so, thus creating an agency relationship. That's why, when determining whether or not an agency relationship exists, one must first determine whether or not the employee was acting within the scope of his/her authority. The status of simply being an employee, without more, does not create an agency relationship. Does the person pumping gas into your car at a corporate-owned Exxon station have the legal authority to bind Exxon Mobil Corporation simply because s/he is an employee of the corporation? I suggest that s/he does not.

In this case (Marriott CSA sharing confidential information about Travel Packages with a customer and [allegedly] making promises to a customer about how the Packages would be treated in the future), it's extremely unlikely that the employee was acting within the scope of his/her authority.

My opinion is based on my 30 years as a litigator (30 this year!!). Yours? In any case, if you want the last word, it's all yours. This conversation seems to have gone as far as it can, without, as I mentioned above, citation to some authority to support your position.


Originally Posted by rny321 View Post
If a reasonable person would believe that an employee had apparent authority, even if the employee didn't have actual authority, the principal can still be bound by its agents actions. Where apparent authority exists isn't something that we are all likely to agree on.
The belief of a "reasonable person" is certainly a major contributing factor in determining whether apparent authority exists, and, if so, its limitations. The determination of whether or not apparent authority exists in any situation is an art, not a science. Compare to actual authority, where it's usually much easier to make that determination.
Wendigo likes this.

Last edited by Dr. HFH; Aug 17, 18 at 1:22 pm Reason: Correct spelling typo.
Dr. HFH is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 18, 1:23 pm
  #100  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 230
Originally Posted by Dr. HFH View Post
You're simply incorrect. But unless you can cite some authority for what you suggest, I'm not going to argue with you any more.

Smith and Roberson’s Business Law

By Richard A. Mann, Barry S. Roberts

https://books.google.com/books?id=ld...agents&f=false

I have more cites if you want.
OssianBlue is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 18, 11:01 pm
  #101  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BOS/UTH
Programs: AA LT PLT & 4.28 MM, QR PLT, SPG LT PLT
Posts: 11,221
Thank you, -- now we're getting somewhere. Did you read the text, or just search for the highlighted words? If you read the text at your link to the Smith and Roberson book, you would have seen this:
All employees are agents, even those employees not authorized to contract on behalf of the employer or otherwise to conduct business with third parties. Thus, an assembly-line worker in a factory is an agent of the company employing her ... but she does not have the right to bind the principal in contracts with third parties.
The point we've been discussing, of course, is not a theoretical, academic discussion of the legal doctrine of agency, it's whether or not what a CSR tells you is of any consequence and creates an obligation on the part of Marriott, the CSR's employer.

Or, put slightly differently, it doesn't matter whether or not the CSR is an "agent" of Marriott. What matters is whether or not a CSR's statements create a legal, enforceable obligation for Marriott. As you can see from the source you quoted, they do not.
Dr. HFH is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 18, 2:13 pm
  #102  
Company Representative - Starwood
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Programs: SPG
Posts: 701
Members,

For members with existing Travel Packages (booked prior to today and not yet attached to a reservation), today we are able to share how they will convert within the newly unified program. Please see the full chart below.

No existing Travel Package certificate is losing value in terms of points and, with the new Free Night Award Chart that goes live today, 70% of our hotels either stayed at the same redemption rate threshold or moved down. As we structured the conversion chart, we considered the introduction of peak and off-peak redemption rates, which will be introduced in early 2019. This means that if you have an existing Category 9 certificate, which converts to Category 6 starting today, holders will still be able to attach the certificate to a stay when redemption rates within that category are at their highest.

Please let us know if you have any questions and we’ll do our best to answer.



Best regards,

Carrie H.
Social Media Specialist
Starwood Hotels & Resorts LLC

[email protected]
Starwood Lurker IV is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 18, 2:25 pm
  #103  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 1,227
Wow. Just wow.

So Marriott knew exactly what they were going to do and didn't announce it before. And the excuse for that is . . .

The people who upgraded in the last few days (especially from 1-5 to 6, or from 7 to 8) are certainly entitled to a chance to downgrade/upgrade.
zachary is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 18, 2:26 pm
  #104  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by Starwood Lurker IV View Post
Members,

For members with existing Travel Packages (booked prior to today and not yet attached to a reservation), today we are able to share how they will convert within the newly unified program. Please see the full chart below.

No existing Travel Package certificate is losing value in terms of points and, with the new Free Night Award Chart that goes live today, 70% of our hotels either stayed at the same redemption rate threshold or moved down. As we structured the conversion chart, we considered the introduction of peak and off-peak redemption rates, which will be introduced in early 2019. This means that if you have an existing Category 9 certificate, which converts to Category 6 starting today, holders will still be able to attach the certificate to a stay when redemption rates within that category are at their highest.

Please let us know if you have any questions and we’ll do our best to answer.



Best regards,

Carrie H.
Social Media Specialist
Starwood Hotels & Resorts LLC

[email protected]
How is the Cat 8 not going down in value, when peak pricing is not being introduced until 2019? The vast majority of formerly Cat 8 hotels can no longer be redeemed with the Cat 8 certificate. This frustrates me a great deal because I called in yesterday to upgrade my certificate to a Cat 9 several times, and was told that your systems were down so they couldnt process the upgrade.
mk712 and Jennlynd like this.
elsaball is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 18, 2:34 pm
  #105  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: BOS
Programs: AA EXP, DL PM, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 1,537
Edited
callmedtop is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: