Note: Please do not post ads in the timeshare forums. If you want to add a timeshare posting, go here.

Original Message:

Re: WALK AWAY FROM TIMESHARE (by KC):

pattig31 has some very interesting theories, but (I'm quite certain) no law degree or bar membership anywhere in the U.S., past or present. With all due respect to personal opinion and free expression, a few items she has stated simply scream and beg for factual correction, some of which are itemized below:

Re: >> Legally, because the timeshare company acted as the sales agent for RCI, they are legally required to ensure that the services are supplied as promised.<<

RCI is an exchange company (a large one and the biggest of them all, but just one of many others). RCI owns no physical real estate -- and never did. Accordingly, no resort sales representative anywhere or at any time, acts (or has ever acted) as "sales agent for RCI". While RCI membership might (or just as likely, might not) be included in a developer sold timeshare purchase, that's the extent of the relationship, other than the fact that the resort is "affiliated" with RCI. That "affiliation" means nothing more than the fact that the resort is acknowledged as a RCI exchange company member and, as such, is eligible to participate in the RCI exchange pool. That relationship is not mandatory for EITHER the resort of RCI and can be terminated by either one, virtually at will. ======================================

Re: >> In effect there are two contracts between the buyer and the timeshare company...the written one with the timeshare company and the verbal one regarding exchange. The timeshare company is legally responsible for adequate provision of (in my case RCI) services as the sales agent for those services. <<

I'm sorry, but this reasoning is badly flawed, legally. The ONE AND ONLY contract that exists is between the seller of the timeshare and the buyer of the timeshare. Once again, RCI is not a sales agent for anyone. They are an exchange company --- no more and no less (but not a very good one in recent years, in my opinion, I'd readily and certainly agree). You have a MEMBERSHIP in RCI which enables you to TRY to make exchanges (RCI makes very clear and in writing in their rules, terms and conditions that there are no (and there never have been) any guarantees of any kind regarding succeeding in making exchanges). You (and/or any other RCI member) can try to utilize or completely ignore (or even terminate) your RCI MEMBERSHIP, completely at will. If you've been lied to by a deceitful timeshare salesman (who is neither employed by, nor can ever speak as an authorized agent for, RCI) your issue is with the salesperson and with the salesperson alone. RCI has nothing whatsoever to do with that particular "beef". ======================================

Re: >> you can easily prove breach of contract. <<

The ONE AND ONLY contract that exists in the above described situation is the written contract which exists between the buyer and the seller of the timeshare. Anything not in writing within that particular contract simply DOES NOT EXIST in the eyes of the law (...any and all slimy timeshare salesperson lies, misrepresentations, and/or half-truths notwithstanding). RCI membership has its own (separate and unrelated to any and all individual resorts) rules, terms and conditions, addressing membership (for one, example that a RCI member can't rent out "exchanges" for profit).

It seems that perhaps you're attempting to rationalize in your own mind just walking away from the contractual responsibilities associated with timeshare ownership, apparently believing (or wanting to believe) that you have some lawful basis on which to do so. All I can say is.... "good luck with that....".

I have "no dog in this fight", but some of your statements (as individually addressed above) are just so grossly inaccurate that I felt compelled to weigh in to correct some truly blatant misstatements of fact as pertain to RCI, contracts, resort / RCI connection, etc. I'm not entering this fray any further than having now simply pointed out those factual / legal inaccuracies.