Ok so airbnb is nothing but a PLATFORM to link guests and hosts together right? RIGHT?

[Donald28]

At least that's what they tell all the cities and counties that sue them. "We don't own properties, we don't manage properties. We're just a platform to link people together".

They are also acting as an escrow to disburse money as agreed upon in the rental contract.. which they are absolutely NOT a party to. 

They are supposed to simply disburse funds to hosts as the chosen cancellation policy contract between hosts and guests dictates. 

So why are we letting airbnb get away with acting like god and doing whatever they want with OUR money? Why are we letting them secretly change the TOS to suit them? 

Watch this lawyers videos. If you're a host who has been screwed over time and time again by airbnb getting into the middle of your contract between the guest and yourself... you need to understand this

Watch ALL of his videos. If any of the mods delete this post, shame on YOU. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0-O2kNg_oY

[Mike-And-Jane0]

@Donald28 

I don't thing the moderators will take this down as I don't think it breaks the community rules.

Having watched the video there is nothing new here. We all know that some lawyers are claiming Airbnb acted unlawfully. Equally, in the UK during lockdown, it is clear they acted lawfully as any contract between guests and hosts was frustrated by the lockdown.

I have not entered arbitration as there would be zero chance of success and all I would have achieved is to lose both the arbitration fee and the lawyers fees. It is interesting to note that I have not seen any lawyers offering their services on a contingency basis - I guess they do not see much chance of success either.

Have you started an arbitration claim against Airbnb?

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

@Donald28 @Mike-And-Jane0 

There should be no reason to take this thread down Donald, as arbitration is a preferred process provided by AirBnb.

The company which Donald links to IS taking cases on a contingency basis for those whose losses are 10 - 20K or above. They have regular hosts, Plus hosts, Luxe hosts, mega-hosts, property managers all signed up, and many of these hosts losses are in the hundreds of thousands.

If you have a keen eye, even around this forum you will see hosts taking arbitration because what AirBnb did was wrong. 

@Mike-And-Jane0  A few weeks ago, a Lawyer posted on this forum in response to your “frustrated contracts” point you read in a newspaper article, it was shot down in flames.

Arbitration is the most effective and AirBnb authorised method to make a claim for losses imposed by secretively changing the wording of the EC policy, interfering with the Guest/Host contract and diverting Host funds into AirBnb accounts.

The more modest losses of regular hosts, us included, makes the arbitration cost with professional guidance highly attractive and financially beneficial.

If nothing more, taking arbitration against the manipulation of set Terms will send a strong message that Hosts are not doormats, and will not stand for this type of  abuse any longer.

It will be the collaboration of Hosts in arbitration which will ensure the abuse stops. Every host who has ever complained about AirBnb’s policies or their biased application needs to be in.

[Mike-And-Jane0]

@Ian-And-Anne-Marie0 So are you going to arbitration? If you do I am confident that you will find I am right. The lawyer you talk of was talking a specific case and never came back to my post on the case law.

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

@Mike-And-Jane0 

For whatever reasons, you seem deeply entrenched in strongly dissuading hosts from pursuing any and all avenues open to them for claiming recompense for the heavy - and in many cases, devastating - losses Airbnb arbitrarily imposed on them, by way of their highly questionable and potentially unlawful Extenuating Circumstances policy - a policy which the company undeniably chose to stealthily amend to suit their own purposes, without warning, notice or explanation to hosts.

What you're repeatedly neglecting to countenance however, is regardless of whatever successes arbitrating hosts may or may not have in relation to monetary outcomes, this is the single greatest opportunity hosts have ever had - and likely, will ever have - to draw public, media and regulatory attention to the abuses being visited upon them by way of such unfair, unethical and unbalanced policies, and in doing so, possibly force Airbnb to amend/abandon said policies altogether, ensuring fairer treatment and a more level playing grounds for all.

As mentioned previously, hosts have already collectively lost unimaginable amounts of money - their money - as a result of the Extenuating Circumstances policy being unfairly and potentially unlawfully applied, not only in COVID times, but over the many years it has been in existence. And unless/until the EC policy is abolished, this practice will continue unchecked, well into the future.

So essentially, the relatively miniscule amount of $350 to file arbitration (of which $200 is the standard AAA arbitration fee, and just $150 grants access to the self-help 10000 Hosts platform, which provides expert legal advice, support and guidance for hosts who wish to pursue their own arbitration cases) is a very, very small price to pay in relation to the unquantifiable losses hosts have already suffered, and will suffer again and again, should the EC policy remain in place.

Also bear in mind that Airbnb's IPO is currently back on the table, and whether they opt to go the traditional, Direct Listing or SPAC route, an avalanche of negative publicity arising from thousands of their own disgruntled hosts arbitrating against them now, would be incredibly damaging for their IPO prospects and potential valuation. So it truly would be in the company's best interests to deal with any arbitration claims swiftly, effectively, fairly and equitably.

The lawyer heading up this initiative, Enrico Schaeffer, is also a host himself, listed on this Community centre and so knows what he's talking about, and has been working night and day on this project for months. And if he does make money out of it, so what? Would you prefer to see that money being siphoned off into Airbnb's bloated coffers (as usual), than going to a man who is putting his career and reputation on the line to fight tooth and nail for hosts' rights, including yours and mine?

So do try and keep an open mind and look at the bigger picture Mike and Jane, instead of incessantly trying to convince your fellow hosts that standing up for themselves and their rights is a lost cause, or a hopeless task. Because nothing could be further from the truth. The New York Times article below may give you some insight into the power of what can be achieved, when injured and exploited parties band together to use the arbitration processes to their collective advantage.

‘Scared to Death’ by Arbitration: Companies Drowning in Their Own System: NY Times: Arbitration Overload.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/business/arbitration-overload.html

[Mike-And-Jane0]

@Ian-And-Anne-Marie0 so the answer to my question is???????

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

@Mike-And-Jane0 

so the answer to my question is???????

YES. And I continue to add new illegitimate Covid case cancellations to my list.

I am confident that I amongst 9,999 other hosts will be happy to prove you wrong, both legally and financially. All those, in addition to the many other hosts who have already been successful in filing arbitration cases using other assisted arbitration companies such as  LegalBnb.

Although, due to non-disclosure, you probably won't really hear very much about it from successful claimants.

Of all the things Airbnb have done wrong, here is something they have done right. Moreso with professional guidance and assistance. By giving hosts teeth by way of their arbitration service means hosts will be demanding justice and using those teeth for biting back and not just sucking air through.

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

@Mike-And-Jane0 

Will you be sucking it up Mike or are you just happy taking a spanking?

Will you ever resent never taking any action when you could have done, when in the future you might fall victim to some other hoodwink, exploitative, coercive, manipulative scam? 

[Mike-And-Jane0]

No I am just going to

a) Apply the law of England and Wales

b) Accept that if no service can be rendered then no fees are due

I wish you well with your claim.

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

@Mike-And-Jane0 

The Law of England and Wales is not Irish Law is it?

And we're not talking about services rendered we're talking about a breach of contract by changing the wording.

T &C's:

21.3 If your country of residence or establishment is outside of the United States and China, these Terms will be interpreted in accordance with Irish law...

I'm happy to spend $150 and have a Professional Lawyer guide my case around the legal obstacles, and take their advice. Now, after already been involved in the process they should have a pretty good idea how to overcome any objections that may head their way, and so that's something I won't need to even think about.

Depending on the specific circumstances, there are many, many variables that could/would negate or invalidate that frustrated contracts law to which you refer in that opinion piece you came across in the Guardian some months ago - and of course, always the possibility of a blanket settlement - so I'm willing and happy to take my chances.

Thanks.

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

There seems to be lots of new members visiting these pages, many disgruntled, many complaining of very similar circumstances, some happy with their lot.  If anything this Community Centre does, it gives them the opportunity of a voice as well as access to information.

Firstly, welcome to them. They are probably the 'new wave' of hosts with the enthusiasm to assert their rights and carry the conversation forward. I do hope they will contribute more.

This must be the most appropriate thread for you all to contribute to in order to establish the groundwork for a future hosting relationship with Airbnb. 

(For new members typing '@' generates a members list. Selecting their listing will notify a reply to their post)

@Michael5134 

@Michael5134 @Teresa617 @Joaquin-and-Andrea0 @Vance8 @Shawn-and-Francie0 @Michael2861 @Bruce-And-Patti0 @John4901 @Sally456 @Pierre85 @Mike-And-Catherine0 @Karen2642 @Kevin472 @Julie203 @Ugo613 @Heather152 @David7060 @Forrest1 @Rick3384 @Geoff7 @Kat27 @Pete-and-Colleen0 @Stephanie946 @Enrique748 @Julie203 @Dream-Home-Vacation-Rent0 @Chas-and-Em0 @Daniela-Vincenzo-Skol-Ma0 @Sally16 @Scott523 @Peter607 @Rosa210 @Donna997 @Jonathan20 @Dustin136 @Bernhard87 

[Fred13]

   The tricky part @Donald28 is that Airbnb can claim they are merely holding the money on reservations subject to exceptions (i.e. their EC policy) to start with and as it turned out the transactions were never completed, and they did return the money back to the guests. Yes, why they were never completed is a whole added can of worms. Regardless, that is a lot of wiggle room for Airbnb in a court of law.

   Having said that, the conversation on arbitration is very enlightening, and definitely is a subject many wouldn't have a blessed clue about without it. 

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

@Mike-And-Jane0 

Just on a side note here. "Attested Covid Cancellations".  How do they all fit into your acceptance that if no service can be rendered then no fees are due, whilst all around those cancellations, bookings are going ahead, completing and being paid, as well as there being no Covid restrictions in place to prevent a service from completing?

A guest saying "Covid" - or not even saying "Covid" and just clicking a button does not justify a cancellation in those circumstances. Or can that be justified somehow?

[Mike-And-Jane0]

@Ian-And-Anne-Marie0 Irish law is very similar to English. See below

COVID-19 & The Doctrine of Frustration

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to uncertainty as to the enforceability of certain commercial contracts. Where parties to a contract have not specifically included a force majeure/material adverse change clause, the common law doctrine of frustration may be brought to bear to bring the contract to an end. The courts have, however, been consistently extremely reluctant to hold that a contract has been frustrated in circumstances where it has simply become difficult or expensive to perform. Ultimately, a decision as to whether the COVID-19 pandemic has frustrated a given contract will depend on the actual impact of the outbreak and the associated government restrictions on the subject matter of the contract itself.

Irish approach

The leading Irish authority on the doctrine is the Supreme Court decision in Neville & Sons. Ltd. v. Guardian Builders Ltd.1  The Court held that the frustration of a contract takes place when a supervening event occurs without the default of either party and for which the contract makes no sufficient provision. That event must so significantly change the nature of the outstanding contractual rights and obligations from what the parties could reasonably have contemplated at the time when the contract was entered into, that a Court must be satisfied that it would be unjust to hold the parties to the contract terms in the light of the new circumstances.

The Supreme Court also noted that the doctrine of frustration was flexible and capable of being applied in new ways in suitable circumstances.

The effects of a finding that a contract is frustrated are:

• all future obligations are discharged (at common law)
• accrued rights stand
• restitution on the basis of a total failure of consideration

Application

The practical difficulty in sustaining an argument of frustration is illustrated in Tsakiroglou v Nobleee and Throl2, where a contract for the shipping of goods was found not to be frustrated, despite the closure of the Suez Canal (the standard route for such shipments) due to the outbreak of war. The Court found that, given that an alternate route was available (although it would more than double the freight cost of the load), the contract was not frustrated.

The Irish High Court has also held that a contract is either frustrated in its entirety, or remains enforceable – expressly rejecting the possibility that a contract can be partially frustrated in Ringsend Property Ltd v Donatex Ltd and McNamara.3

Notwithstanding the high hurdle that must be cleared in order to sustain an argument of frustration, common law courts have found contracts to be frustrated in the following circumstances:

(i) Impossibility – e.g. a contract of employment is impossible to perform if the employee then dies.4 It must be physically impossible to perform as opposed to commercially difficult (e.g. the goods to be supplied are destroyed or cannot physically be delivered. If delivery is physically possible but more onerous or delayed (as above, in Tsakiroglou5) the contract will not be frustrated);

(ii) Illegality – e.g. in Fibrosa Spolka Akcyina v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd6, it became illegal to trade with Poland during WW2. If confinement or travel ban measures are put in place due to COVID-19, arguably this may strengthen an illegality argument;

(iii) Frustration of purpose – this is extremely narrow, the underlying purpose of the contract must have evaporated. If the contract is more onerous or the purpose still partly possible, the contract is not frustrated.

Conclusion

The success or failure of a plea of frustration based on the COVID-19 pandemic in defence of a breach of contract claim will mainly depend on the factual matrix surrounding the subject matter of the contract. The length of any delays imposed by pandemic-related restrictions, in particular, will be of significant importance.

The Court must consider whether or not the party seeking to invoke frustration has established that the outbreak of the pandemic, and the associated government restrictions renders it physically or commercially impossible to fulfil the contract or alternatively transforms the obligation to perform into a radically different obligation from that undertaken at the time that the contract was made. 

For further information please contact a member of the A&L Goodbody Litigation & Dispute Resolution team.

Date published: 31 March 2020

---

[Ian-And-Anne-Marie0]

@Mike-And-Jane0 

Interesting. There's a lot of words there but no substance when Airbnb's policy wording changed without notification, and the original contract never included 'Pandemic' anywhere.

As stated in my previous post, and confirmed by the article you just posted - there are many, many variables that could/would negate or invalidate the frustrated contracts law to which you continue to refer. All laws are subject to interpretation, depending on specific circumstances, so espousing a one-size-fits-all mantra is not only inaccurate, but highly misleading.