6 ms·

Just FYI, if you're lying to get out of paying for something, or to get reimbursed on false pretenses that is called fraud and is illegal. It's also wrong to do

Just FYI, if you're lying to get out of paying for something, or to get reimbursed on false pretenses that is called fraud and is illegal. It's also wrong to do, it is an action taken in bad faith.

gjs278 7y ago
shut up. it won’t affect anyone but the scamming hotel.
55555 7y ago
Thanks Dad. I had never heard about lying before and didn't know it was wrong or that fraud was illegal.
brailsafe 7y ago
Thank you so much for this information. I'll be sure to do whatever I can to continue bleeding money on pointless expenses after I get laid off instead of doing what I can to get by.
nexuist 7y ago
> it is an action taken in bad faith So is a hotel denying you a refund during an epidemic. There is an obvious power differential here between Joe Blow and some billion dollar hotel chain. You need the money for basic survival far more than they need it to pad their quarterly earnings.
- chadash 7y ago
  By booking a non-refundable rate, which is generally cheaper, you took that risk. So long as the hotel is open, it's not really their problem. The fact that they have more money than you doesn't give you the right to steal from them. If you really need the money for basic survival, fine, we can argue about the morality of it. But even with a possible recession looming, it's unlikely that the price of a hotel stay is going to be the difference between life and death for you. It's unlikely you are in basic survival mode yet, unless you've already lost your job and are living paycheck to paycheck and there are no available government programs to help you right now and no friends or family to turn to.
  - lmartel 7y ago
    Nonrefundable rates are not marketed as a bet against global catastrophe. They're a commitment that you won't change your mind. This epidemic is more similar to the hotel burning down. I would expect my money back in that scenario and do whatever I could to retrieve it.
    - listenallyall 7y ago
      No, they are marketed as "non-refundable." As in, you don't come, you don't get a refund. End of story. With that said, many hotel chains and airlines have suspended their typical non-refundable rules, so a simple phone call would likely suffice.
      - hrktb 7y ago
        You had to explain what “non-refundable” should be interpreted as. I think we can agree different people will have different interpretations. I’d also expect any terms in the actual ToS defining “non-refundble” to get void in front of a judge in this specific cases if this was really pushed that far.
      - gjs278 7y ago
        what if the hotel CEO came and murdered your entire family right in front of you a day before the reservation? he was then prosecuted and admitted guilt in a court of law. refund yet?
    - gnaritas 7y ago
      No, non-refundable means non-refundable. You don't have a right to expect your money back under any circumstance.
- parallel 7y ago
  Needing the money more doesn't change the agreement.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- gnaritas 7y ago
  > So is a hotel denying you a refund during an epidemic. No it isn't. They're not your family, they don't owe you a refund, you agreed to the cancellation policy at purchase time. Abide by the terms or you are the one in the wrong.
- jhanschoo 7y ago
  I don't think you understand what "bad faith" means. Bad faith refers to signalling that they will act in one way without any intention of following through. When a non-refundable booking is made, both sides understand that the correct way to follow through is to not have a refund, should circumstances (not caused by the hotel) arise where the customer could not end up staying in the hotel. Hence there was no bad faith on the part of the hotel.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
This is also why some hotels have draconian-seeming policies, requiring all sorts of documentation. Because without them, some people will lie.
miguelmota 7y ago
Not all policies are fair and there should be exceptions during times of crisis. Hotels do questionable advertising practices all the time to lure in customers and then hit them with arbitrary fees during checkout which seems like bad faith to me.
- pergadad 7y ago
  Hotels do so but whether this specific hotel is guilty is another question.
- parallel 7y ago
  This is the "two wrongs" argument. They do bad things so we should be able to do bad things back.
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    Pointing out the type of argument doesn't negate that argument. While I don't think it's ok to simply commit fraud because I think the company is committing general fraud in most areas... If someone runs up and steals my phone but drops their own, I'll be keeping their phone until they make things right. The same goes especially for multi-billion dollar corporations. You cheat me out of something, I will first attempt to right that wrong through the proper channels. If I am unsuccessful, I will right that wrong through unofficial channels. Within reason, of course.
- noncoml 7y ago
  How is it fair for the hotel to pay for the consumer's gamble in booking a non-refundable room? They just got unlucky and they should suck it up. If the hotel has to refund everyone, it will either have to go under, or if it is too big to fail, be bailed out with my money. I don't see why I should pay for someone's else gamble.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    Nobody prices in a once in a century, global pandemic when looking for a hotel room: not the customer and not the hotel. If the room was booked more than 3 months ago, the agreement was based on false information and should be able to be renegotiated in light of the current state of the world.
sjtgraham 7y ago
It doesn’t really matter. With this simplistic view the hotel is breaching the contract. There is a mutuality of obligation. If the customer is obligated to pay for a room then the hotel is obligated to provide the service.
- rosybox 7y ago
  If that is so then you should make your point without having to create a false story.
fortran77 7y ago
The Hacker News "hackers" have no moral compass, especially when it's "the little guy" vs a "corporation" of any sort.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
wolco 7y ago
Is wrong to do? That's a question of morality. Canceling a hotel stay by giving them an acceptable reason doesn't feel wrong to me. They can use that reason to claim government to rebuild money after all of this. Lying is a legal sense is very different to just lying or not telling the truth. Not sure many judges would side with the hotel. Not sure the hotel could prove bad faith. I'm very sure the cost of a suit would be higher than the cost of the refund.
tangue 7y ago
This. A contract is a contract. If all people around you stop respecting their contracts, where will you be ?
jpambrun 7y ago
Maybe. But they would have to sue you; a PR suicide.

Just FYI, if you're lying to get out of paying for something, or to get reimbursed on false pretenses that is called fraud and is illegal. It's also wrong to do, it is an action taken in bad faith.

gjs278 7y ago

shut up. it won’t affect anyone but the scamming hotel.

55555 7y ago

Thanks Dad. I had never heard about lying before and didn't know it was wrong or that fraud was illegal.

brailsafe 7y ago

Thank you so much for this information. I'll be sure to do whatever I can to continue bleeding money on pointless expenses after I get laid off instead of doing what I can to get by.

nexuist 7y ago

> it is an action taken in bad faith So is a hotel denying you a refund during an epidemic. There is an obvious power differential here between Joe Blow and some billion dollar hotel chain. You need the money for basic survival far more than they need it to pad their quarterly earnings.

chadash 7y ago
By booking a non-refundable rate, which is generally cheaper, you took that risk. So long as the hotel is open, it's not really their problem. The fact that they have more money than you doesn't give you the right to steal from them. If you really need the money for basic survival, fine, we can argue about the morality of it. But even with a possible recession looming, it's unlikely that the price of a hotel stay is going to be the difference between life and death for you. It's unlikely you are in basic survival mode yet, unless you've already lost your job and are living paycheck to paycheck and there are no available government programs to help you right now and no friends or family to turn to.
- lmartel 7y ago
  Nonrefundable rates are not marketed as a bet against global catastrophe. They're a commitment that you won't change your mind. This epidemic is more similar to the hotel burning down. I would expect my money back in that scenario and do whatever I could to retrieve it.
  - listenallyall 7y ago
    No, they are marketed as "non-refundable." As in, you don't come, you don't get a refund. End of story. With that said, many hotel chains and airlines have suspended their typical non-refundable rules, so a simple phone call would likely suffice.
    - hrktb 7y ago
      You had to explain what “non-refundable” should be interpreted as. I think we can agree different people will have different interpretations. I’d also expect any terms in the actual ToS defining “non-refundble” to get void in front of a judge in this specific cases if this was really pushed that far.
    - gjs278 7y ago
      what if the hotel CEO came and murdered your entire family right in front of you a day before the reservation? he was then prosecuted and admitted guilt in a court of law. refund yet?
  - gnaritas 7y ago
    No, non-refundable means non-refundable. You don't have a right to expect your money back under any circumstance.
parallel 7y ago
Needing the money more doesn't change the agreement.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gnaritas 7y ago
> So is a hotel denying you a refund during an epidemic. No it isn't. They're not your family, they don't owe you a refund, you agreed to the cancellation policy at purchase time. Abide by the terms or you are the one in the wrong.
jhanschoo 7y ago
I don't think you understand what "bad faith" means. Bad faith refers to signalling that they will act in one way without any intention of following through. When a non-refundable booking is made, both sides understand that the correct way to follow through is to not have a refund, should circumstances (not caused by the hotel) arise where the customer could not end up staying in the hotel. Hence there was no bad faith on the part of the hotel.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

This is also why some hotels have draconian-seeming policies, requiring all sorts of documentation. Because without them, some people will lie.

miguelmota 7y ago

Not all policies are fair and there should be exceptions during times of crisis. Hotels do questionable advertising practices all the time to lure in customers and then hit them with arbitrary fees during checkout which seems like bad faith to me.

pergadad 7y ago
Hotels do so but whether this specific hotel is guilty is another question.
parallel 7y ago
This is the "two wrongs" argument. They do bad things so we should be able to do bad things back.
- jjeaff 7y ago
  Pointing out the type of argument doesn't negate that argument. While I don't think it's ok to simply commit fraud because I think the company is committing general fraud in most areas... If someone runs up and steals my phone but drops their own, I'll be keeping their phone until they make things right. The same goes especially for multi-billion dollar corporations. You cheat me out of something, I will first attempt to right that wrong through the proper channels. If I am unsuccessful, I will right that wrong through unofficial channels. Within reason, of course.
noncoml 7y ago
How is it fair for the hotel to pay for the consumer's gamble in booking a non-refundable room? They just got unlucky and they should suck it up. If the hotel has to refund everyone, it will either have to go under, or if it is too big to fail, be bailed out with my money. I don't see why I should pay for someone's else gamble.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Nobody prices in a once in a century, global pandemic when looking for a hotel room: not the customer and not the hotel. If the room was booked more than 3 months ago, the agreement was based on false information and should be able to be renegotiated in light of the current state of the world.

sjtgraham 7y ago

It doesn’t really matter. With this simplistic view the hotel is breaching the contract. There is a mutuality of obligation. If the customer is obligated to pay for a room then the hotel is obligated to provide the service.

rosybox 7y ago
If that is so then you should make your point without having to create a false story.

fortran77 7y ago

The Hacker News "hackers" have no moral compass, especially when it's "the little guy" vs a "corporation" of any sort.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

wolco 7y ago

Is wrong to do? That's a question of morality. Canceling a hotel stay by giving them an acceptable reason doesn't feel wrong to me. They can use that reason to claim government to rebuild money after all of this. Lying is a legal sense is very different to just lying or not telling the truth. Not sure many judges would side with the hotel. Not sure the hotel could prove bad faith. I'm very sure the cost of a suit would be higher than the cost of the refund.

tangue 7y ago

This. A contract is a contract. If all people around you stop respecting their contracts, where will you be ?

jpambrun 7y ago

Maybe. But they would have to sue you; a PR suicide.