[rosybox]

Just FYI, if you're lying to get out of paying for something, or to get reimbursed on false pretenses that is called fraud and is illegal. It's also wrong to do, it is an action taken in bad faith.

[nexuist]

> it is an action taken in bad faith

So is a hotel denying you a refund during an epidemic. There is an obvious power differential here between Joe Blow and some billion dollar hotel chain. You need the money for basic survival far more than they need it to pad their quarterly earnings.

[chadash]

By booking a non-refundable rate, which is generally cheaper, you took that risk. So long as the hotel is open, it's not really their problem. The fact that they have more money than you doesn't give you the right to steal from them.

If you really need the money for basic survival, fine, we can argue about the morality of it. But even with a possible recession looming, it's unlikely that the price of a hotel stay is going to be the difference between life and death for you.

It's unlikely you are in basic survival mode yet, unless you've already lost your job and are living paycheck to paycheck and there are no available government programs to help you right now and no friends or family to turn to.

[jhanschoo]

I don't think you understand what "bad faith" means. Bad faith refers to signalling that they will act in one way without any intention of following through.

When a non-refundable booking is made, both sides understand that the correct way to follow through is to not have a refund, should circumstances (not caused by the hotel) arise where the customer could not end up staying in the hotel. Hence there was no bad faith on the part of the hotel.

[parallel]

Needing the money more doesn't change the agreement.

[miguelmota]

Not all policies are fair and there should be exceptions during times of crisis. Hotels do questionable advertising practices all the time to lure in customers and then hit them with arbitrary fees during checkout which seems like bad faith to me.

[parallel]

This is the "two wrongs" argument. They do bad things so we should be able to do bad things back.

[pergadad]

Hotels do so but whether this specific hotel is guilty is another question.

[noncoml]

How is it fair for the hotel to pay for the consumer's gamble in booking a non-refundable room?

They just got unlucky and they should suck it up.

If the hotel has to refund everyone, it will either have to go under, or if it is too big to fail, be bailed out with my money.

I don't see why I should pay for someone's else gamble.

[wolco]

Is wrong to do?

That's a question of morality. Canceling a hotel stay by giving them an acceptable reason doesn't feel wrong to me. They can use that reason to claim government to rebuild money after all of this.

Lying is a legal sense is very different to just lying or not telling the truth. Not sure many judges would side with the hotel. Not sure the hotel could prove bad faith. I'm very sure the cost of a suit would be higher than the cost of the refund.

[JumpCrisscross]

This is also why some hotels have draconian-seeming policies, requiring all sorts of documentation. Because without them, some people will lie.

[brailsafe]

Thank you so much for this information. I'll be sure to do whatever I can to continue bleeding money on pointless expenses after I get laid off instead of doing what I can to get by.

[jpambrun]

Maybe. But they would have to sue you; a PR suicide.

[fortran77]

The Hacker News "hackers" have no moral compass, especially when it's "the little guy" vs a "corporation" of any sort.

[tangue]

This. A contract is a contract. If all people around you stop respecting their contracts, where will you be ?

[sjtgraham]

It doesn’t really matter. With this simplistic view the hotel is breaching the contract. There is a mutuality of obligation. If the customer is obligated to pay for a room then the hotel is obligated to provide the service.

[rosybox]

If that is so then you should make your point without having to create a false story.