I obviously could not post the note while on board, and it is fairly long, with a lot of clauses. I'll scan it in and then copy across. The ship has had its registration shifted from Greece to Malta, and we were given a letter saying that all terms in the T&C referring to Greek law should be taken as referring to Maltese law. The letter, however, referred to the head office in Fort Lauderdale, and seemed, though it is hard for an amateur to be sure, to be couched in US legalese rather than British.
What really offended me was, that when I had repeatedly offered to make payment by a perfectly reasonable, efficient and secure way, the premise upon which the letter was based was that I had an intention to defraud the company. Nothing about it acknowledged that the situation was due to circumstances beyond my control.
Earlier in the cruise, letters were sent out at night - I was not the only recipient - pointing out that credit card companies had refused to recognise cards, and asking for the recipients to visit Reception to set up an alternative. This letter, though the Purser agreed that I should not have received one, was reasonable, pointing out that there were various reasons why the card transactions might not be honoured. (The most common one in the circumstances seems to be people who have not informed their card company of travel abroad.)
I replied to it with my surprise, since the ship was aware of my circumstances. The Purser said it was an automatic computer letter, and I said that I thoought that was the case, but that since paper had been produced I thought it wise to add to the trail.
I had the same thought Richard did about the ownership of the passport - I've been handing it over on sleeper trains so that the staff can hand them to border staff without a qualm, though.
The person I was travelling with did not share my reaction and said they had to cover themselves as people did defraud them. I feel that the language was wrong. Particularly in leaping at once to the suggestion of my intention to renege. (Over, I might add, two lots of four hours internet access and a letter to post (at exorbitant rate)). I would have thought an ill intentioned person would have been drinking the bar dry and occupying the spa treatment room continuously.
I would have been perfectly happy to sign something along the lines of "I, Penelope _________, of ___________, promise to pay the company Voyages to Antiquity all sums accrued to my account while on the ship Aegean Odyssey between 29th June 2010 and 13th July 2010, currently totalling $38, within ten working days of leaving the ship.
I fully understand that if prompt payment of what I owe is not made, the company shall be entitled to pursue whatever legal means they deem appropriate to recover the debt, and that I shall be liable for the costs of this."
I don't see that that has any massive holes to slither through. What I was asked to sign was not clear about who was meant by various nouns (none of that "hereinafter referred to as..... stuff). I felt that it was a document of a type which people like Richard would advise should not be signed without taking legal advice first. The Purser said that I did not have to pay in Fort Lauderdale, but could pay the Oxford office, and did not even need to pay at once, but merely underline my intention of paying. That is not what it said. It specified the form of payment as cashier's check or money order, but she said that wasn't necessary either.
I had not run up debt without means of paying - most of the account was before the theft. One of the internet purchases was after, so could be seen as credit as Howard suggests.
Meanwhile, the company has a different attitude to its own side of agreements. It advertises cruises with different educational themes - this one was on Byzantium. The next one was not. However, people who had booked on that cruise were moved to ours (and possibly another), with inducements such as free flights and cabin upgrades, because a group of 261 Russians wanted to charter the ship for some purpose. They would be providing their own staff. British staff have been laid off, unpaid, but with free flights home and out again. Filipino staff and crew have been kept on because of the terms of their contracts.
Several people booked on our cruise had a particular visit as the prime reason for coming, a visit which required the use of the Corinth Canal. At the last minute we were told that there had been a landslip in the canal (true, but see below), and that there was doubt about the draught of the ship clearing it (possibly true) and we would therefore have to visit Mycenae instead. A hotel there was able to cope with 300 unexpected guests very well.
However, the evidence is that the most recent landslip was in 2007. It may not have been fully dredged since, but the ship was advertised, since then, as being able to use the canal. Can't use the state of the tides as a problem. One passenger had a friend on a larger boat which did use the canal. Someone claimed that he had found out that the company never paid the fee to use the canal in the first place. (Isn't it odd how fantasists never seem to notice that people do stuff (like researching) when they aren't looking.
I suppose they may find it hard to understand that people can be honest.