Post reply

Update on Lawsuit against RCI (by Beck):

I wonder if "Unjust enrichment" is an argument which has been submitted in this lawuit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unjust_enrichment

I agree it's difficult to win a suit when you agree to terms allowing the other party to take advantage of you. But at some level there are legal protections which by law can't be waived. Does anyone think RCI's actions to rent units which causes removing inventory from exchange availability unjust enrichment?

I haven't read all the T&C with RCI, I've trolled thru the Diamond Resorts T&C and Club docs. There are a lot of sections which favor DRI over the owner/member, some of which I am contemplating addressing thru unjust enrichmet.

I submit that while RCI has the right to rent units, their responsibility to provide units for exchange through the same T&C can trigger unjust enrichment. For example, if 10 owners deposit 10 units and 5 owners snap up the 5 best deposited units. The other 5 owners are out of luck if they wanted those 5 best units already exchanged. Suppose though that RCI chose to rent out the 5 best units. - First, even though RCI has the right to rent units per their T&C, they have unjustly removed available inventory and created a situation where 5 of the 10 members will not be able to exchange AS WELL AS leaving the least desirable units for exchange. While I'm certain the T&C protects RCI in the case of units not being available, if they are directly reducing availability without alternate fulfilment then I would like to think this could be unjust enrichment. - Second, if RCI is renting out the best deposited units they are using privilege of being the managing entity to take advantage of members. That sounds unjust to me. I can understand if a unit wasn't being exchanged. I can understand if there were a surplus of units at a resort during the same period. It would not be unjust to rent those units out since that sounds like members were not taking advantage of exchanging to that location. But if members want to exchange into a Disneyland timeshare in California and the less desirable resorts/units come available for exchange while the more desireable resorts/units are available for rent, then that sounds like unjust enrichment to me. Really, any CA resort near Disney deposited should be available for exchange and not rental due to the high demand in that location, and in all similar demand location. Regardless of what the T&C say, RCI still has a responsibility to provide members with exchanges and removing units in situations where they would have been exchanged should be a legal violation.