The court case of Mirra v Holland American Lines and Cruise Inc. a travel agency, can be a lesson and guidance for the future. While
Cruise inc. was listed as a defendant the decision discussed herein dose not concern this T.A.. since it made a separate settlement with Mirra. Ms. Mirra paid for a seven day cruise in Alaska aboard the Nieuw
Amsterdam. She alleges and filed suit contending the accommodations were not like those described in the HAL brochure nor by the T.A.. In the brochure the stateroom was 219 sq. ft, twin beds, a couch that opened up as a bed nor were other attractive features advertised.

When she complained to the front office she was told that she could not be moved since the ship was completely sold out.

Holland American offered her $1500 to settle her claim that she refused. At the trial, HA: requested the court to dismiss the case on
the grounds that Mirra had not notified HAL in accordance with the terms in the passenger ticket that she intended to sue and file suit. In large print the passenger ticket stipulated she had to notify the cruise
line within 30 days of her claim and file suit within 180 days.

The court agreed with HAL and dismissed the suit. PASSENGERS SHOULD READ AND ADHERE TO THE PASSENGER TCKET ESPECIALLY WHEN SUBMITTING A CLAIM. THE PASSENGER TICKT IS AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT.

Source: HermannP

In most cabins on that ship bed configuration is at pax choice - 2 singles or queen bed. In the brochure which I have, there is no mention of a pullout bed and none is shown in the picture.

Brochure picture states "Approx.219 Sq.Ft." It also states - "Some rooms in the same category may vary in size and/or have different furniture placement from that pictured."

In my book 100 sq.ft. is a far cry from confirmed 219 sq.ft. On that score the complaint was well justified. Strange too that HAL offered $1500 after so long a delay.

Just remember - read and understand all contracts!

quote:

---

Originally posted by cncservo:
Reading the fine print on RCCL brochure will inform one that they might have to pay RCCL for the Explorer of the Seas if responsible for its demise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
This reminds me of the damage that was done to the RCL Ship by all the kids. I heard that thousands of dollars in damage was done to the artwork. Did their parents have to pay?
I think Mirra should have taken the money. Cruise lines have many lawyers on their side to fight lawsuits.

---

Mercy - I think Mirra was looking for a free cruise. Can't understand why she waited so long. As I said before the whole thing sounds fishy to me.

1. If HAL expect you register that you intend to sue them within 30 days it does not leave much room to settle the matter in an amicable fashion. Under ABTA (UK) rules companies have 28 days to reply after a complaint is made, the reply can simply be an initial holding letter. It does not foster good will if at this point the passenger states that they will sue.

2. I dont know about elsewhere but here in Scotland there is a law about "unfair contracts". Basically this means that it does not matter what the small print says if a Sherrif feels that the clause is vexatious then it can be dismissed out of hand.

This law is sometimes used in cases where the individual faces the corporate might of company lawyers. It makes it less easy for companies to dismiss people out of hand and say that if they dont like it they can go to court which most people will not do due to the costs.

It depends whose law had durestiction when you book, some companies use their (local)law, others will intromit with the passenger's.