I’m going based off what the poster stated. If that is true, then there would be fraud. Then again, I’d think that MOST hotels and airlines would push the charge at the time of booking. I don’t know this specific chain’s policy. If we take the customer @ face value, then hotel would be wrong. Taking your statement at face value, then you are right. It’s all a matter of which side is accurately representing themselves here, correct?

“I assumed the hotel would charge my credit card at the end of my son’s stay. But somewhere between the time I made the reservation and the time my son checked in, the Holiday Inn converted to a Wyndham, and my credit card was charged the full $753.”

I admire your tenacity, but at some point it might be prudent to concede that the practicing business attorney might have an insurmountable advantage. *smile*.

You cannot prove or even adequately make a prima facie case for fraud because.

You cannot prove the hotel lied. The hotel no doubt operated consistent with its established policies according to the negotiated contract between itself and the franchising chain. All bookings are subject to that agreement.

So when you make the assumption that the hotel promised not to charge the guest before arrival, that’s a false assumption. Again, all bookings are subject to the franchise contract which almost certainly contemplates the procedures for guests who booked while the hotel was under Chain A but changes in the interim to Chain B.

Thus there are two possibilities

Scenario 1: The hotel operated consistly with the agreement in which case there is no untrue statement.

Scenario 2: The franchise agreement is silent and the hotel’s GM made a command decision. In which case you lose the prong of knowledge of falsity at the time of the making of the statement

Under either scenario, the elements of fraud are not met.

The only way to have fraud would be if at the time of the booking, the hotel has made a decision to charge credit cards early and not tell anyone. That would be a bit farfetched.

You should also know that fraud is disfavored so that the elements are very strictly construed.

.

I think you are forgetting ONE KEY fact in your argument. They charged his credit card without authorization. Not only that, but they charged him too much intentionally. That right there is fraud without any other argument.

That meets ALL 5 of your definitions.

1) Room is prepaid but not to be charged until services rendered
2) Client based his booking upon this promise but it was intentionally broken
3) Hotel was aware of its policy at time client purchased service
4) Customer relied upon this agreement when purchasing the room.
5) Customer COULD have suffered Overages on his credit card, been charged overdraft fees, high interest as he or she was NOT expecting to receive the bill until such time services were rendered.

Maybe I am not a lawyer, but all those definitions seem pretty clearly met when the hotel went ahead and “Confirmed” the room on their own volition without getting the consent of the card holder. Not to mention, they upcharged him too.

Alas, that would be under the term consequential damages which are generally not compensable unless either reasonably foreseeable or contractually mandated. The OP would be SOL.

@Justin

We have to be carefuly throwing around loaded word like fraud. It might be helpful to know what fraud means. Fraud has the following elements 1)A statement of fact, 2)that is false, 3)and known to be false at the time its made, 4)that is relied upon by the hearer, 5)to his detriment.

Each elements must be met in order for there to be fraud. At least elements 2-5 are missing. Hence no fraud.

Additionally, as long as the hotel provides a room generally in conformance with the contract, the hotel is in substantial conformance with the contract. Anything else is a minor breach of the contract, left to the civil courts, not criminal law.

In this case, the “fraud” is basically in charging the agreed upon price earlier than the OP anticipated. Hardly a major breach of the contract.

The AG office would not be interested.

You pointed out the flaw in your argument. THEY DID NOT approach him to cancel but went ahead and charged. Only after Chris got involved did they offer him the difference. So they were MADE MORE THAN WHOLE, which would be fraud until the OP was refunded. Circumstances taken into account, I would still be calling the attorney general. This hotel ACTED in poor faith and only caved when put under pressure of a nationally syndicated ombudsman. Obviously, had they settled, we wouldn’t have been reading. So, their actions warrant an investigation by the state if you ask me….

What becomes of those who DO NOT KNOW about Chris?

No, I’m not wrong. I am a practicing business attorney. Fraud has a very specific legal definition which these facts do not even come close to making; not the least of which is an intent to deceive.

The hotel did the right thing. Presumably the OP received the type of room that he requested. Additionally, he received the difference between the non-refundable and refundable rate. The OP has been made whole. What more is the OP entitled to?

To use your analogy. IF the OP orders a car with a luxury trim line but the dealership only has the regular trim line, there are two options. Cancel the order or the dealership refunds the difference. In this case the latter option was taken.

The attorney general would be very annoyed at having his time wasted on this.

It worked out for me in the end; the new management was very helpful and even honored the rate for which I had booked the room on my word alone (the hotel had been rebranded as a more upscale property and the rates went up more than 50%). The result was that I was glad to give my business to the new owners…and I have not stayed at ANY hotel of the former brand, since apparently if the hotel is sold they will cancel my reservation without even telling me. Nice, huh?

You make a good point. However, reflagging of a hotel is often not an ownership change but rather a change of association or franchise. So there is no purchase so to speak.

Part of the confusion that many are having is that when you make a reservation with a hotel, its unclear who the contract is with. Is it the chain or the individual hotel? Depending on the T&C and how the reservation was made it might be either or both.

So we cannot make any assumptions about this situation.

Additionally, rebranding is not a pleasant thing. It usually means that the hotel and the original chain aren’t really too pleased with each other and probably aren’t being overly cooperative.

As far as AX, I have never had them deny a dispute. Most of the time, I have never even had to document a complaint. The charge is simply removed. I have no complaints with AX on that score. Other issues, certainly but that’s for another day.

Wyndham’s actions do not remotely amount to fraud. I doubt an attorney general would be remotely interested in this. This is a straightforward contract dispute. The hotel made good on the difference between the rates. Nothing else to see here.

As far as new company goes, if you read the terms and services of some of these contracts, they specify what happens in case of a reflagging. That’s what controls in these cases.