 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
skiking4, how terribly American. Free speech and all that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Gosh - I don't really know what to say apart from I don't feel the initial comment deserved the reaction it got. Let alone to quoteunder a new name, 'free speech and all that'
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Weird, but there's probably more than meets the eye. (Wow, some colourful prose on TGR, btw!  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| skiking4, how terribly American. Free speech and all that. |
His right to free speech has not been violated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
laundryman, I see what you are saying - but has he not been punished because of his right to free speech??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bonhomme de Neige, as the resort is a private body they can permit or deny access to whomever they choose. They don't need to explain their actions, either. I do, however, think TPTB at Sugar Loaf have behaved like muppets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crikey - what idiots! Just look at all the bad PR this has generated - and a stupid thing to say the crash wasn't related to the conditions. Any crash can be related to any conditions - hard and fast piste, chopped up crusted piste, soft lumpy snow....it doesn't mean to say it's the resort's fault though.
Condolences to the girl's family - what an awful accident 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
And I guess a situation that probably wouldn't happen in Europe where although a company owns the lift system, it doesn't own the skiing area/resort. Although I did say I got a little bored with the slopes at Kitzbuhel last week - whoops....... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bonhomme de Neige, if I were to bad mouth you (justifiably or not), I wouldn't expect a right of entry into your property, even if I were prepared to pay for the privilege.
I accept that the Sugar Loaf owners may have behaved stupidly, but I don't think they have a duty to allow entry to anyone, and he can still write whatever he pleases, subject to potential civil liabilities for libel (at least, I assume that is the case in Maine).
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Ok I accept what you are saying, it is private property etc etc. so they have no reason to allow entry. So is this a possible scenario. maybe I turn up and I have red hair - the bloke on the entry doesn't like red hair - they refuse me, but I have actually done nothing wrong. On what grounds?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Bonhomme de Neige, we'll rapidly get on to specific anti-discrimination laws. Maybe hair colour will be next. I think I'll leave that minefield alone.
As a business (but not a retail business) proprietor, I have declined to do business with people on more or less arbitrary grounds - for example, sensing that they're not trustworthy, or because experience has taught me that dealing with them is more trouble than it's worth. I wouldn't like that freedom taken away from me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| Bonhomme de Neige, if I were to bad mouth you (justifiably or not), I wouldn't expect a right of entry into your property, even if I were prepared to pay for the privilege. |
True, but that's not quite the set up here; you have already sold Bonhomme de Neige access, can you now remove it? Probably you can; no doubt the owners of Sugarloaf know what they can and can't do, contractually.
There may also be differences between your obligations as a private citizen and your obligations as a commercial organisation. For example, you can deny someone access to your home just because you don't like the colour of their skin; you can't deny them access to your ski hill for that reason (at least, you couldn't if the ski hill was in England).
[Edit] Your latest post crossed with mine.
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much  on Mon 9-02-09 22:05; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
But is not the resort in question - 'open to the public?'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Bonhomme de Neige, yes, but as laundryman says, he would expect the right to refuse to do business with (in this case, to admit) someone just because he didn't fancy doing so. In England, providing that he doesn't do so for a 'prohibited' reason (race, gender, maybe religion, maybe sexuality, who knows, the list keeps growing) he can do so. I'd expect to be able to the same thing, and have done occasionally. I have also sacked existing clients who have behaved, in my view, badly. It's a bit of a luxury, but why should one have to work for people whom one finds unpleasant (providing that one discharges one's professional obligations to them)?
Looks like a major own goal for Sugarloaf, mind you, whatever the legal/moral rights and wrongs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| richmond wrote: |
| I have also sacked existing clients who have behaved, in my view, badly. |
Same here. Most recently when a startup wanted to ban us from doing business with established multinational organisations (for whom he knew we'd worked for years) in any area vaguely related to what we were doing for him. I invited him to buy the company for the price of a small ski resort if he fancied cancelling all the other contracts, which he declined, unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I would have thought the purchase of a ski pass would represent a legally binding contract between the two parties, in which case the ski resort can not just unilaterally revoke it, well they can but it would obviously be a breach of contract, they do have a clause however in their terms and conditions that gives them the right to cancel the ski pass for just about any reason, althought it could be argued that they has done so vexatiously in which case it would be seen as an unreasonable act by them. maybe the guy should try to force specific performance ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
rayscoops, I'm sure that alex heney will be along in a second to tell you whether or not specific performance would be an appropriate remedy in this case. I'm keeping out of it, 'cos I hate speculating without the facts at my disposal! And also because I know nada about the law of whatever state this ski resort is in.
I always used to think how lovely it would be to be able to sack a client! I never did, though, despite some sore temptations. The nearest I got was refusing to do something illegal (backdating a document): the client would have had to be sacked, had he insisted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Hurtle, Even if it was in this country, without seeing the actual T&C it would be almost impossible to know wheher that would be a reasonable remedy.
In the US, a whole different ball game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
alex_heney, aw shucks, I was relying on you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
sounds like the offending post was the last in a long line of provocations. Poor PR though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alex_heney, there is a very short set of Ts & Cs on the Sugar Loaf site. It mentions a few specific things for which they can terminate the contract, but making a nuisance of yourself off the premises isn't one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a tragic accident. As a parent myself, it's hard to imagine how that girl's parents must feel having encouraged their daughter in the sport that she loved but which ultimately killed her.
But the resort's attitude is incredible. IANAL, but I'm happy to say that the clause in the season ticket T&Cs relied upong by Boyne Resorts (who also run Big Sky, BTW, which is rather more likely to be visited by your average  ) would almost certainly fall foul of UK law, and I believe that most European countries have similar protection. Boyne's season tickets apparently are issued subject to the following gobsmackingly unbalanced clause: "Any of the following violations may be grounds for total revocation of lift privileges without any refunds... Any other activities that the Boyne USA, Inc resorts deem inappropriate." In the UK, a clause in consumer contract may be deemed unfair (and therefore unenforceable) 'if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer'.
Boyne's behaviour would never stand up in a UK court. Sometimes I'm pretty glad that we live in a country that attempts to strike a sensible balance between the rights of consumers and big business - but I'm careful not to expect to be protected in the same way I cross the pond. In particular, I'll be very careful to examine any T&C's before I again give money to Boyne Resorts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
You don't need to look across the pond for this. CML (CairnGorm Mountain Limited) has banned long standing season ticket holders from their uplift and attempted to ban them from using lifts at any Scottish Resort for complaining about and public comments about CML managements policy of 'managed decline' that has trashed uplift capacity on the mountain and left the best advanced terrain no longer fully lift served.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Winterhighland wrote: |
| You don't need to look across the pond for this. CML (CairnGorm Mountain Limited) has banned long standing season ticket holders from their uplift and attempted to ban them from using lifts at any Scottish Resort for complaining about and public comments about CML managements policy of 'managed decline' that has trashed uplift capacity on the mountain and left the best advanced terrain no longer fully lift served. |
But have they done so without any refund?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
| Winterhighland wrote: |
| You don't need to look across the pond for this. CML (CairnGorm Mountain Limited) has banned long standing season ticket holders from their uplift and attempted to ban them from using lifts at any Scottish Resort for complaining about and public comments about CML managements policy of 'managed decline' that has trashed uplift capacity on the mountain and left the best advanced terrain no longer fully lift served. |
But have they done so without any refund? |
I do not know that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Big own goal for Boyne . If the original comment was reported verbatim it does seem to me to be insensitive (although a journalist may have baited it by pushing the question) and if the banned guy's only "crime " was to comment on this it seems they have created a PR disaster out of an original tragic event while trying to hold the moral high ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we need more information before we jump to conclusion about if this is right and wrong. But my guess is it's 99% bogus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Just for interest, having rooted around on Epic's thread regarding this, the banned skier did apparantly receive a refund for the entire remaining portion of his pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
When I worked for a very large UK company, occasionally when faced with a customer that by the number of complaints (and claims for compensation) was obviously unhappy with the level of service, we sent them a letter along the lines of, "we feel unable to meet your expectations and reluctantly..."
I am a strong believer in free speech, and Winterhighland's example seems quite appalling, but this guy was a self-confessed troll.
BTW didn't one of the English football clubs actually sue someone for defamation for something said on a forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
