Except, as Marionnette points out below, David's and others contend that resort closure IS the owner's responsibility.
You would think they'd have learned. But putting the onus on the owner in the contract with the renter while not making the owner agree to those terms in the owner's contract indicates that the new contracts are every bit as screwed up as the old ones.
But, but, but... David's has a contract with the renter saying you
are liable.
This is no better than the old contracts ensuring both parties they would get a refund, which is what got David's into this mess in the first place. Now his contracts with the renters are holding owners to terms that the owner didn't agree to in their contract?
Who wants to enter into a contract with me where we both agree that if the sun comes up in the east tomorrow, David's owes us $1M each? Since it's in the contract we signed and agreed to, he's liable right?
As Sandisw pointed out, whether "nefarious" or not, David's is most definitely taking the stance that owners are responsible in the case of resort closure to deflect the liability from himself (despite the fact that his negligence in writing the contracts resulted in this situation not being adequately addressed).
The new contracts seem aimed at "rectifying" that error (in a way favorable to David's) by stating that the owner IS responsible under these circumstances. I find it all the more mind-boggling, then, that this CRITICAL caveat is omitted from the owner's contract.
Which (if not "nefarious") is, at a minimum, not transparent. Including that in the owner's contract would likely result in absolutely NO ONE agreeing to the terms of that contract. But the broker still needs that caveat to cover themselves.
What to do? What to do?
I've got it! Add it to the renter's contract!
Once again, these contracts are offering assurances to the renter that probably won't "stick" because the owner didn't agree to them.
View attachment 496212