3 ms·

"When Mann booked the accommodations, Formula One organizers hadn't locked in the exact race dates. So she covered her bases — reserving the same four-bedroom u

"When Mann booked the accommodations, Formula One organizers hadn't locked in the exact race dates. So she covered her bases — reserving the same four-bedroom unit for two possible weekends in May 2026, both with free cancellation. Once the official dates were announced, she cancelled the extra booking, in line with Booking.com rules." And then Booking.com cancelled her booking, in line with Booking.com rules. Shit goes both ways.

stavros 11mo ago
Funny, I've never noticed "we can cancel your booking for absolutely any reason we want" under the "free cancellation" text. It's almost as if one is shown really prominently, and the other hidden under a mountain of text. But I know nobody would consider the two equivalent, so I must be mistaken. Right?
- mx7zysuj4xew 11mo ago
  If the booking can be cancelled at any point for any reason then what is even the point of booking to begin with. If the booking isn't fixed untill you showed up on the exact date at the hotel front desk then wouldn't that make making prior bookings moot
  - stavros 11mo ago
    Very much so, and that's why they should pick between "all bookings are final" and "we prominently tell customers we can cancel bookings at our discretion", with nothing in-between.
dghlsakjg 11mo ago
The rules -- as described in the article -- don't really jive with what you are saying. Booking or the hotel reserve the right to cancel for clear pricing errors with the example cited from their own terms being a $1 room. They do not claim a right of cancellation for arbitrary reasons. It isn't at all clear that this is the same class of error. $4,500 that she paid is the normal price for the room, not a pricing error. Their "error", if it can be considered a pricing error, is that they accepted a booking without factoring in that the dates were possibly an event weekend where they could deviate from their normal pricing. I don't accept the excuse of "it turns out that we can make more money than the standard rate we charged you" as an error, and I don't think any reasonable judge or arbitrator would see it that way either.
- meindnoch 11mo ago
  https://www.booking.com/content/terms.en-gb.html https://www.booking.com/content/terms.en-gb.html "[...] A5. Our values 1. You will: [...] - not use the Platform to cause a nuisance or make fake bookings [...] If you breach these Terms (including our values and our Content standards and guidelines) or fail to comply with applicable laws or regulations, we have the right to: - stop you making any bookings, - cancel any bookings you’ve already made [...]" She made two bookings, one of which she intended to cancel from the get go, in other words, it was a fake booking.
  - dghlsakjg 11mo ago
    That isn't what they cited as the reason for cancellation, so is completely irrelevant to the conversation. I'll bite though: I don't see what the definition of a "fake booking" is in there, but I would argue that knowing that you need one of two weekends, and fully intending to use the booking when that determination is made, does not make it a fake booking. A cancelled booking is not the same as a "fake booking", cancellation is a service that they offer (presumably for cases just like this, where exact ravel dates are still being determined) and she paid for. You can't offer, and upcharge, for a cancellation service and then claim that cancellation is not within your terms of service. Additionally, the remedy for making "fake bookings", as described in the document you are citing, is that they will cancel your booking. They did not cancel, they attempted to 4x the price. So that section doesn't apply doubly. 1. She did not make a fake booking 2. They did not invoke that section in their reasoning, and they did not use the remedies described by that section. Edit: Finally, you have chosen a section of the terms and conditions for a different country (GB) on a different continent that is neither the home of the hotel or the person making the booking, or the travellers accompanying the person making the booking. It is not just completely irrelevant from a textual perspective, but also completely irrelevant because it has no legal relevance for any of the parties involved.
  - mx7zysuj4xew 11mo ago
    That's for when someone repeatedly books 40 rooms with no intention to stay the thats a nuisance booking or something similarly excessive, the equivalent of fake pizza orders 2 bookings isn't a nuisance booking.

stavros 11mo ago

Funny, I've never noticed "we can cancel your booking for absolutely any reason we want" under the "free cancellation" text. It's almost as if one is shown really prominently, and the other hidden under a mountain of text. But I know nobody would consider the two equivalent, so I must be mistaken. Right?

mx7zysuj4xew 11mo ago
If the booking can be cancelled at any point for any reason then what is even the point of booking to begin with. If the booking isn't fixed untill you showed up on the exact date at the hotel front desk then wouldn't that make making prior bookings moot
- stavros 11mo ago
  Very much so, and that's why they should pick between "all bookings are final" and "we prominently tell customers we can cancel bookings at our discretion", with nothing in-between.

dghlsakjg 11mo ago

The rules -- as described in the article -- don't really jive with what you are saying. Booking or the hotel reserve the right to cancel for clear pricing errors with the example cited from their own terms being a $1 room. They do not claim a right of cancellation for arbitrary reasons. It isn't at all clear that this is the same class of error. $4,500 that she paid is the normal price for the room, not a pricing error. Their "error", if it can be considered a pricing error, is that they accepted a booking without factoring in that the dates were possibly an event weekend where they could deviate from their normal pricing. I don't accept the excuse of "it turns out that we can make more money than the standard rate we charged you" as an error, and I don't think any reasonable judge or arbitrator would see it that way either.

meindnoch 11mo ago
https://www.booking.com/content/terms.en-gb.html https://www.booking.com/content/terms.en-gb.html "[...] A5. Our values 1. You will: [...] - not use the Platform to cause a nuisance or make fake bookings [...] If you breach these Terms (including our values and our Content standards and guidelines) or fail to comply with applicable laws or regulations, we have the right to: - stop you making any bookings, - cancel any bookings you’ve already made [...]" She made two bookings, one of which she intended to cancel from the get go, in other words, it was a fake booking.
- dghlsakjg 11mo ago
  That isn't what they cited as the reason for cancellation, so is completely irrelevant to the conversation. I'll bite though: I don't see what the definition of a "fake booking" is in there, but I would argue that knowing that you need one of two weekends, and fully intending to use the booking when that determination is made, does not make it a fake booking. A cancelled booking is not the same as a "fake booking", cancellation is a service that they offer (presumably for cases just like this, where exact ravel dates are still being determined) and she paid for. You can't offer, and upcharge, for a cancellation service and then claim that cancellation is not within your terms of service. Additionally, the remedy for making "fake bookings", as described in the document you are citing, is that they will cancel your booking. They did not cancel, they attempted to 4x the price. So that section doesn't apply doubly. 1. She did not make a fake booking 2. They did not invoke that section in their reasoning, and they did not use the remedies described by that section. Edit: Finally, you have chosen a section of the terms and conditions for a different country (GB) on a different continent that is neither the home of the hotel or the person making the booking, or the travellers accompanying the person making the booking. It is not just completely irrelevant from a textual perspective, but also completely irrelevant because it has no legal relevance for any of the parties involved.
- mx7zysuj4xew 11mo ago
  That's for when someone repeatedly books 40 rooms with no intention to stay the thats a nuisance booking or something similarly excessive, the equivalent of fake pizza orders 2 bookings isn't a nuisance booking.