Indemnity-I was asked to leave this resort

[Murf2u]

Originally Posted by Francesca

Here's what you crossed out:

I think the biggest problem was that you made them "liable" for the actions of other customers when you ran your pen across that line.

He didn't make them liable, he agreed not to indemnify them.

There's a world of difference between the two.

For instance, an employee of the park, knowing there's a big hole a customers dog dug, leaves it there without so much as putting safety cones around it, then after dark an elderly customer takes a fall stumbling into the hole in the dark.

The dog owner is liable for their dogs actions, the employee was negligent in not marking the hazard.

The waiver would mean nobody could be sued. Not necessarily that the owner was liable, especially an absentee owner.

[Francesca]

Originally Posted by Murf2u

He didn't make them liable, he agreed not to indemnify them.

"Agreed not to indemnify"??? That's exactly what I said, only I wouldn't call it "agreeing", since it puts quite a burden on the Park....

By striking that language, the O.P. refused to indemnify (protect) them, even against potential damages caused by their customers, effectively making the Park responsible/liable for the actions of others over whom they clearly have no ordinary control.

[tncruiser]

my question after reading 30 posts is "where is this place and what is it called?"
brianj

[Francesca]

Originally Posted by tncruiser

my question after reading 30 posts is "where is this place and what is it called?"
brianj

Planet Earth....WELCOME!

[tncruiser]

Originally Posted by Francesca

Planet Earth....WELCOME!

i hate when someone gives a whitty answer
where is the jealous emoticon
brianj

[Murf2u]

Originally Posted by Francesca

"Agreed not to indemnify"??? That's exactly what I said, only I wouldn't call it "agreeing", since it puts quite a burden on the Park....

By striking that language, the O.P. refused to indemnify (protect) them, even against potential damages caused by their customers, effectively making the Park responsible/liable for the actions of others over whom they clearly have no ordinary control.

Not the same at all.

It takes a Judge's say-so to make someone liable, but anyone can indemnify someone else.

IF someone does something that might have resulted in an injury, that's a potential liability to them. If someone then sues then it's up to a Judge (and or jury) to decide who (if anyone) is liable and to what extent.

An indemnification means someone else is going to stand between the Judge and the potentially liable person.

Had you said potentially responsible/liable I might have agreed with you.

[Startech]

Originally Posted by tncruiser

my question after reading 30 posts is "where is this place and what is it called?"
brianj

I have been debating whether to disclose the place or not. Like another post suggested, now that I think it would do no harm to sign the form as written, I may give time for heads to cool and try to return at a later time. The location of the park is very convenient for me. Maybe the owner or manager was just having a bad day. Also, after some research, it seems a few of the members of this forum frequent this park and have enjoyed their stay.

Originally Posted by Dick Noble

What little I remember from contract law:
1) A "Hold harmless clause" may not be inforceable. I never sign one anyway. Why risk it?
2) an inability to change a contract may lead to two problems
a) It is not inforceable on its face (there was no meeting of the minds) or
b) You accept it and are forced to adhere to it. If you paid out money (an exchange of consideration) and signed it, you may be held to it's terms.

Not being able to change contract terms can lead to an "adhesion contract" which may be voidable.

The underlined MAY is what keeps lawyers in business.

It would be interesting to look at the state's laws governing rental property.

Best bet - don't do business with any one who insists on these types of contracts. Protect yourself.

This thread has taught me something that I did not know and that is you can't contract away stupidity or negligence. If a park you know nothing about, tries to do that, then maybe its not worth the risk.


Finally, yes there has been differing opinions though out this thread and that is what is so great about forums. You get the full spectrum and may see something a different way upon realization. So again, thank ALL of you for your input.

[Pnr]

The next time you go in for a medical procedure, look at what all you are asked to sign. A man I know went in for by-pass surgery, the surgeon made a terrible mistake. The man was damaged for the rest of his life.
The long list of sue happy lawyers all gave the same answer after looking at the case.

You signed the hold harmless agreements, therfore nothing can be done.

When you sign ANY agreement it bears some weight in legal procedings.

[Francesca]

Originally Posted by Pnr

The next time you go in for a medical procedure, look at what all you are asked to sign. A man I know went in for by-pass surgery, the surgeon made a terrible mistake. The man was damaged for the rest of his life.
The long list of sue happy lawyers all gave the same answer after looking at the case.

You signed the hold harmless agreements, therfore nothing can be done.

If the negligence alleged in red above is true, the rest is nonsense.

[LVJ58]

I would appreciate if you could share the name of this particular RV park/resort or at least the general location in a state or province in interest of those who may or may not with to patronize same in the future.

Thank You and Best regards,

[Mekanic]

I feel since the cleck took the money and gave you a spot you were entitled to that spot for however long you paid for it.
paid for means paid for.

[Midniteoyl]

Originally Posted by GULFSTREAM37

You can thank all the sue happy people and the Lawyers and our judicial system for contracts like this.

So Many Scumbags looking for Free Rides it is Pathetic.

The system allows People to sue for anything they want however so ridiculous and the owner is responsible for Defense and Expense!

The only one who wins are the Lawyers involved, they both get Paid no matter the result.

Do yourself a Favor next Time and Sign without making any changes.

In the event of a Truly at fault (by the Campground Staff) situation I see no Reason why it could not be Peacefully resolved between the parties without any Lawyers.

This is mainly a Defense mechanism to avoid Frivolous lawsuits.

Good Luck.

So only sue happy free loaders are to blame? They are the only ones who sue?

[Midniteoyl]

Originally Posted by Mekanic

I feel since the cleck took the money and gave you a spot you were entitled to that spot for however long you paid for it.
paid for means paid for.

He refunded the money, thus he got a free night in exchange for the inconvenience of having to move..

[webslave]

My take, after reading all the above, which contains some legal truth, some suppositions and, unfortunately, not a whole lot of "two legs to stand on" until such time as the contract is actually forced into a binding legal proceeding...

I have to side with the owner(s) on this one. They may have been a little "over the top", but, I can understand their position.

The "contract" was presented to the OP as just that, a contract; not an invitation to debate, or a form that said "Here it is, make changes as you see fit, sign it and I'll abide by your decision". It was a contract that the owner put together, presumably with some legal guidance, and submitted to the potential renters as a "Here's my rules and legal position. Sign if you agree to abide by these" or tacitly, "Here's the rules, if you don't like them, you are free to go your own way." If the OP didn't like any of terms, he was free to go his own way, or, he could have noted changes to the contract, then asked the attending person to please show the amended contract to the owner, unsigned, for the owner's approval and would it be OK if I
he stayed until the owner could ratify the changes and he would agree to abide by the current contract until such time as the changes could be agreed to. Common courtesy, to me anyway. It is the owner's CG, his to with as he deems necessary, probably based on a previous occurrence that forced him to that extreme legal position as protection against another such instance. The owner, obviously, didn't agree to the changes and just as obviously felt an affront to his authority of ownership and to eliminate a screaming confrontation or debate (it wasn't in his mind or mine a debatable situation), took the easiest recourse; hit the road. To me; understandable.

Before I worked for the government, I ran / owned several businesses and they all had "agreements / contracts" that absolved the business of being liable for the customer's stupidity, however, none of them could even come close to absolving the business of "negligence". None of those contracts, other than the fees involved, were negotiable or open to debate.

I'm not a lawyer, all the "contracts" I've ever put forth in running any of those businesses were put together by lawyers on the business' payroll and I would never take it upon myself to alter one, let alone accept one altered by someone else, without the approval of said lawyers and I'm pretty sure that the staff at that CG now know that acceptance of a contract altered by anyone other than the owner is verboten.

Just my "take". I'm not slinging mud at anyone...purely a "good intention" gone horribly wrong.