That's exactly what this is about. Vail, according to @Mugiwara, is failing to honor these terms, and incorrectly cited other unrelated terms in their response. It does sound like a canned response from an overwhelmed customer service department, but that's still not an excuse for taking someone's money, deactivating their pass when they request a refund under the terms both parties agreed to, and then refusing to issue a refund multiple months after the fact.I thought it was pretty clear from the 'refund terms' that not much would actually give you a refund this season. The way I read it, the pass guaranteed 7 days or more (for local or full Epic) of skiing on days you chose at a resort of your choice.
Refund for Non-Availability of Priority Reservation Days. If you are unable to select one or more of your desired Priority Reservation Days and you have not used your Pass on or before December 7, 2020, you are eligible to receive a refund (a “Reservation Availability Refund Event”).
The needs of the skiing public are a shareholder concern for Vail. There is no law preventing upper management from caring about or dealing with this kind of concern.With a publicly traded company, by law significant numbers of upper management work solely on dealing with shareholder needs and requirements. With a privately owned ski resort be it a big or small company, there is greater focus (or should be) on the skiing public.
I think this is a commonly repeated misunderstanding of the fiduciary duty a company has towards its shareholders (public or private). If such a law existed, it would essentially prevent a company's management from actually engaging with the company's business, which would be kind of silly and counterproductive.
Last edited: