Obligations

[gmcunni]

as a season pass holder how would you feel if the mountain charged "extra" for lifts running after a certain date? Would you pay a premium to enjoy a few more days of spring skiing?

hard to say what i'd do. I have no problem going somewhere else and paying for a day ticket after my home mountain is closed. so would i be willing to give that same cash to HOME after their "regular" closing date? perhaps, but i'd want a discount since i am a season pass holder :wink:

i'd guess it is less about what premium the minority of us are willing to pay but rather there are so few people showing up that all the behind the scenes costs simply don't make it economically feasible to run lifts, groom trails, open lodges and patrol the trails.

smart economic decisions (as several have already said) are key to longevity of the mountain.

 

[AlpineM]

Cancel the operation after the peak season skiing.
that's my opinion.

 

[legalskier]

Even if you could win such a case, all the snow will have melted by then! Seriously though, a season pass is a contract between the area and the passholder. You first should check the written terms of the contract you entered into. The duty of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every contract, and the essence of this duty is to avoid depriving the other party of the benefits of the contract. So the ski area does not necessarily have a unilateral right to terminate skiing at will. However, a court probably would not require them to remain completely open if they are losing money; but that would be a defense they would have to prove (by opening their books). Another legal theory is a claim under the consumer fraud statute of the state in which the ski area is located. On the other hand, the area can say that as long as they are providing some skiing, they have fulfilled their obligation to provide skiing for the season. Your statement that “This has been an industry norm for years” doesn’t help, as it reflects your understanding (at the time you entered the contract) that such a norm in all likelihood would continue. Also, taking your position to its logical extreme might require them to be 100% open on the first day of the season as well, which seems unreasonable. Some agreements include a requirement that disputes go to arbitration before even getting into court. (Here’s an example: http://www.skisundown.com/forms/season-pass-app.php.) But that does not necessarily mean you would lose the case. And unless the clause provides otherwise, the arbitrators have the power to award injunctive relief (such as requiring the ski areas to remain open), even on a preliminary injunction basis. Don’t lose sight of the big picture either–a one-time pyrrhic win for you might result in an industry reaction to the detriment of everyone else in future seasons. A practical consideration, moreover, would be the funding of such an action, which is formidable. It might be better simply to shop around beforehand for the areas that are known for keeping the most terrain open longer than others, if that’s a realistic option for you. I understand your frustration right now, but it’s the path of least resistance.

 

[icedtea]

the arbitrators have the power to award injunctive relief (such as requiring the ski areas to remain open)

never happen.

 

[Geoff]

Sometimes, it's worth pulling some small dollars out of your marketing budget to run lifts while operating at a small loss because it gets people to come back next year.

 

[dbking]

Thanks Legalskier. That was the kinda advice I was looking for. I already knew the answer from the ski areas. And I have no interest in a real legal fight. Just curious as to whether or not a ski pass had any legit legal pressure for ski areas to keep a chair running when the conditions permit it. Again, thanks.