Biker395 wrote:The point is this ... contract law is based on English common law, which itself is based on Judeo-Christian mores about right and wrong and what is fair. When two parties enter an agreement, the parties have a right to get what they bargained for. Changed circumstances for one of the parties (better deal elsewhere, I changed my mind, I can't afford to sell) does not excuse performance.
1. The passholders bargained for an MVP pass that would be good at both Mammoth and June for $600. If Mammoth can no longer provide both, the MVP pass holders have been damaged if MMSA cannot perform. Offering to refund the money does not cure the breach, because the MVP holders will have received less than they 2 resorts they bargained for. If you agree to sell a car for $1000 and change your mind, you can't simply offer to give the $1000 back and call it good. The other party is entitled to the agreed bargain.
2. The passholders shoveled over >$600 a piece back in April, assuming that they would get a pass that entitled them to skiing at two resorts. Two months later, MMSA offers to give it back and call it good. As TOML now knows all too well, statutory interest damages are about 7%. It would seem to me that MMSA should offer those that opt out 7% interest on their $600 for those two months.
Now, the passholder agreement is not a simple contract, and it could well be that no one is entitled to anything based on that agreement. And frankly, I have no desire to harm MMSA's financials any more than they are ... I want them to be healthy.
But what I'm trying to say is that the MVP passholders have a legitimate complaint about this ... firmly rooted in what most of us consider fair.
This is exactly my feelings and one of the most thought out answers I have seen on the forums.
The MVP pass, for me and several others, was a TWO mountain pass. Usually around 1/3 of my days each season (30-100 days, depending on work) are at June. To take that away from the MVP pass is not fair in the slightest, and to offer a refund does not make up for what they have taken away. Now they've got me and many others by the balls. I own a place in Mammoth, so am I going to ask for a refund knowing I will get my moneys worth at Mammoth? No, obviously not, but this doesn't make it fair to take away such a vital part of the season pass.
When the pass is sold as a TWO mountain pass, and the company who sold it and took our money two months ago decides that they can only offer ONE mountain, there needs to be some sort of retribution other than offering our money back. This is because the pass doesn't have the value that people judged it to have at the time of purchase. The pass still has a lot of value, just not the value it had when it was sold to us as a two mountain pass. To say that offering a refund is fair is a ridiculous statement. Would I have purchased the MVP pass at the same price for one mountain? Yes, probably, but that doesn't make a difference (and I probably wouldn't if I didn't have a place in Mammoth and LOVE the area).
They took our money with the knowledge that this may happen, and have held it for two months knowing this. As Biker points out they could be liable for the statutory interest damage in this matter, though I too do not know what sort of language they have put in their contract to limit their liability in the event this sort of thing shall occur.
Bottom line, Rusty has not rectified the situation by offering a refund. The corporate feeling that has started to take over makes me sick, as this is not what Mammoth or June Lake should be. I know I'm leaving some of my thoughts out because I am writing this so quick but we deserve SOMETHING other than an offer at a refund.