REQUEST for Hyatt Corporate/Discount Codes

I did a google search and found a few codes, but nothing good. I always use codes I don't qualify for with no problem. The rates are good, but usually not any cheaper that Priceline so I don't see why the hotels would care. It's obvious why they don't publish them, and the system would be ruined if they did, but until them it's not really hurting anyone. Either I book through Priceline and get that hotel or a similar one, or I choose where to stay at a slightly higher corporate rate.

I think the key is just not to open up a loyalty program account (that way the chain has no clue which codes you use). If a hotel tried to charge me a rack rate I would just leave, there's nothing in the t&c's about an invalid corporate code switching to a rack rate. I make an agreement to pay x amount, so I doubt they could legally force me to pay a rack rate. There's nothing illegal about using a corporate code you're not entitled to. Immoral, maybe, but definitely not illegal. I've only been asked for ID a couple of times in Canada, but even then I did not pay a rack rate.

BG2002 said:   I think the key is just not to open up a loyalty program account (that way the chain has no clue which codes you use). If a hotel tried to charge me a rack rate I would just leave, there's nothing in the t&c's about an invalid corporate code switching to a rack rate. I make an agreement to pay x amount, so I doubt they could legally force me to pay a rack rate. There's nothing illegal about using a corporate code you're not entitled to. Immoral, maybe, but definitely not illegal. I've only been asked for ID a couple of times in Canada, but even then I did not pay a rack rate.The code you use is on the reservation they have at the front desk... It has nothing to do with any loyalty program.

Not illegal??? Wrong! If they wanted to make an example of you, you could be in store for serious problems, since you are knowingly committing fraud by misrepresenting yourself as a member of a group that has contracted a rate with the property.

BTW, there are cases in the forum where people have entered into transactions with codes, for which they did not qualify, and then were asked to substantiate their qualification to use the codes. When they couldn't, they were charged rack rate. Your agreement to pay a lower rate is based on fraud and wouldn't hold water. You would be liable for the full charge.

The issue of the use of codes, for which you do not qualify, has been covered repeatedly in the travel forum.

Bottom line is that you have no clue what your are talking about.

BG2002 said:   I apologize if I upset or offended anyone. I'm not trying to tell anyone they are wrong for disagreeing with this action.

I was merely commenting that I've never experienced a problem. And my comment about a loyalty program was meant to mean that there would be no history of using several different discount codes, not that the code wouldn't show up at all. I searched the travel forum before posting and I only a couple threads mentioning the rack rate charge, but it was only people warning that this could happen, but nobody actually confirming that it does happen.

As far as the illegality, you are probably correct that some state fraud statutes could be read to include this activity, although I couldn't find a case that did. But even if they did, damages in regular fraud cases are calculated as the benefit of the bargain and courts have thrown out excessive claims by injured parties and required them to submit what the cost would have been absent the fraudulent representation. For example, a drug company normally offered volume discounts and sold Z amount of the product for x price to US consumers, but the plaintiff claimed to be from a different country to receive a lower y price. The drug company could only recover the difference between x and y, and not the highest price they could charge for the drug. Since the volume discount was given to everyone, they couldn't recover for the non-discounted price minus y.

So rack rate would almost certainly not be allowed to calculate damages, unless this was disclosed up front.

But again, I'm not saying that you should do this or calling anyone stupid for disagreeing with this practice. I'm just saying my opinion on it, which we clearly disagree about.FYI, for what it's worth, the issue is not the calculation of damages in a court of law.

The point is that if you accept and use the services of the lodging property, you must compensate them for that lodging.

Your conclusion from the drug company cite is flawed, since hotels actually do charge the rack rate to some customers.

The rack rate is different from the maximum allowable charge for the room, which is usually a function of the state and local innkeeper statutes.

The question is whether you qualify for a discounted rate. Since the rate you got was based upon a fraudulent representation, the contract is null and void.

However, you are still liable for compensating the merchant.

They are not going to sue you, but instead charge your credit card for the full non-discounted rate.

You can dispute the charge, but will not prevail, since you received the lodging services and attempted to fraudulently avail yourself of a contracted rate for which you did not qualify.

Personally, I don't care what you do, but I would hate to see people read your post and then get themselves in trouble.

Nope not in jail. I just thought we had agreed to disagree. No one was able to provide an example of a hotel charging rack rate to someone using an unauthorized corporate rate. Apparently there were LOTS of threads on it, but I didn't find one. I also figured that if something like this went to court or if someone got in criminal trouble for it, there would likely be an article written about it. But once again I couldn't find anything.

So I will take my personal experiences over internet urban legends. And even if it turns out that all this conjecture ends up to be true, my savings over the past few years will certainly offset more than a few rack rate experiences.