Joan Holtz (a)Join now to read essay Joan Holtz (a)From Case 5-3, I chose number 3, Cruise. Raymond’s, a travel agency, chartered a cruise ship for two weeks beginning January 23, 2007, for $200,000. In return, the ship’s owner agreed to pay all costs of the cruise. In 2006, Raymond’s sold all available space on the ship for $260,000. It incurred $40,000 in selling and other costs in doing so. All the $260,000 was received in cash from passengers in 2006. Raymond’s paid $50,000 as an advance payment to the ship owner in 2006. How much, if any, of the $260,000 was revenue to Raymond’s in 2006? Why? Does the question of whether passengers were entitled to a refund in 2007 if they canceled their reservations make any difference in the answer? Why?
This piece from 2012 was updated to add a new version of “A Long View of Why the Travel Agency Should Quit Rental Travel.” It explains the rationale of a legal action over a cancellation of a cruise’s contract and discusses the legal theory and arguments of a consumer. This new version also addresses a related question regarding why the Travel Agency should stop rental travel to persons when it determines that their occupancy of space may be a violation of its policies, which can include: (1) the requirement that the “no rental travel” clause of the National Transportation Safety Board (NSBSB) is applied equally to the contract and/or any other agreement to which the individual is entitled, (2) a consumer has to be convinced that the agency “provides no legal justification for its decision to terminate the contract,” and/or (3) this section of the NSBSB has been amended to add a provision that provides that “[a]fter an act of this article, the agency is not obligated to provide at the request of the individual, when it is seeking an employment contract, employment authorization, or other documentation required by law.”
My current article on the “The Travel Agency Should Quit Rental Travel” section at Reason, a public site covering transportation planning, provides additional resources on this topic. In particular, this article examines the effect on the rental process by a travel agency (Ritz & Meier) of canceling rental contracts that would require a buyer to pay rent, or some other type of contractual penalty for the rental of space that could cause serious disruptions to the rental plans of individuals, and explains how the rental contract could be affected by the Ritz & Meier decision. I also provide specific examples on how one would choose to cancel a rental contract in the event of cancellation. My previous article on this topic and other public sites will be updated regularly to offer a more complete analysis such as whether a rental contract is “properly considered a rental” under any other circumstances. My latest article is available on Reason.gov via the form Reason.gov.
The following excerpts from this article from the 2014 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Report are taken from “How Rental Travel Benefits Your Life, Your Transportation,” January 19, 2009:
The NTSBs have conducted an inventory of rental contracts in recent years, and have determined that in some cases, the rental contract is not for a specific purpose—for example, for a business organization. For
This piece from 2012 was updated to add a new version of “A Long View of Why the Travel Agency Should Quit Rental Travel.” It explains the rationale of a legal action over a cancellation of a cruise’s contract and discusses the legal theory and arguments of a consumer. This new version also addresses a related question regarding why the Travel Agency should stop rental travel to persons when it determines that their occupancy of space may be a violation of its policies, which can include: (1) the requirement that the “no rental travel” clause of the National Transportation Safety Board (NSBSB) is applied equally to the contract and/or any other agreement to which the individual is entitled, (2) a consumer has to be convinced that the agency “provides no legal justification for its decision to terminate the contract,” and/or (3) this section of the NSBSB has been amended to add a provision that provides that “[a]fter an act of this article, the agency is not obligated to provide at the request of the individual, when it is seeking an employment contract, employment authorization, or other documentation required by law.”
My current article on the “The Travel Agency Should Quit Rental Travel” section at Reason, a public site covering transportation planning, provides additional resources on this topic. In particular, this article examines the effect on the rental process by a travel agency (Ritz & Meier) of canceling rental contracts that would require a buyer to pay rent, or some other type of contractual penalty for the rental of space that could cause serious disruptions to the rental plans of individuals, and explains how the rental contract could be affected by the Ritz & Meier decision. I also provide specific examples on how one would choose to cancel a rental contract in the event of cancellation. My previous article on this topic and other public sites will be updated regularly to offer a more complete analysis such as whether a rental contract is “properly considered a rental” under any other circumstances. My latest article is available on Reason.gov via the form https://www.freeessays.education/exchange-commission-and-u-s-securities-essay/
"> APA