Price increase at our KOA

Im willing to bet the previous owner kept the deposit.

Would be nice if the new owner honored the previous price

mike

dedmiston wrote:
Offer + Agreement + Consideration = Contract

Yes and terms of contract may allow price adjustment. Maybe even space relocation and adjustment to amenities such as the pool could be closed. Got to read the fine print. I would think if the initial basic terms were not honored the contract should be cancelable/refundable with reasonable notice.

This has been an interesting conversation.

I'd like to know if the OP called KOA Corporate HQ to get their take on this.

time2roll wrote:

jdc1 wrote:

Super_Dave wrote:
Every year at the end of our season we make our reservations for the following year. In that reservation is a listed price. Well, this off season the KOA was sold to new owners and I was notified that the price would go up 25%. Does that seem reasonable that the new owner can not honor a standing reservation? And to add insult to injury, they want to move us to a less desirable site.

That would not be allowed in California. You buy the place, you buy all warranties, liabilities, ect.

Making a reservation is not always the same as a paid fixed contract.

Interesting point. It it's probably a contract when you pay a deposit though.

Offer + Agreement + Consideration = Contract

jdc1 wrote:

Super_Dave wrote:
Every year at the end of our season we make our reservations for the following year. In that reservation is a listed price. Well, this off season the KOA was sold to new owners and I was notified that the price would go up 25%. Does that seem reasonable that the new owner can not honor a standing reservation? And to add insult to injury, they want to move us to a less desirable site.

That would not be allowed in California. You buy the place, you buy all warranties, liabilities, ect.

Making a reservation is not always the same as a paid fixed contract.

Super_Dave wrote:

agesilaus wrote:
There must be some corporate standards, possibly not about contracts and customer relations, but I see a number of ex-KOAs around the country and they got the boot for something. Customer complaints may start their slide on the way out.

If they are still a campground, what might be happening is after a few years the owner is tired of KOA corporate dipping into their pocket and dictating how things are run. They can use the KOA advertising and eventually separate themselves from the corporate chain.

From reading reviews online in almost every case when a campground was formerly a jellystone or KOA it was not the franchisee choosing to end the relationship, it was the campground being run into the ground and not meeting standards and getting too many complaints. Then generally a few years later they sell the place and a new owner takes over, the place has such a poor reputation that they have to rename again to start clean with things like online reviews. I've seen that pattern probably 20 times when researching places to stay.

MarkTwain wrote:

Lantley wrote:
In the end the new owner is entitled to run his new place however he wants including raising rates.
I agree it would be a preferred to accommodate existing reservations at there original price.
However if the new owners has found the original rates to be too low he does not have to lose money by honoring the rates.
The new owner certainly understands raising the rates is controversial, however they may see it as a necessary evil to be profitable

Business Capitalism and profits must be based on "keeping agreements". Failure to keep agreements, personal,business or legal is pretty much how the Mafia ran their businesses !!!!

For new reservations, the business owner can run it how they want. Exiting reservations are bound by the Contract. If the new owner didn't verify the Contractual obligations of the business before purchasing, that's the owners problem.

Even the Mafia run their business following their agreements. Protection cost may go up next month but if you paid the protection payment they asked for this month, your business doesn't have an "accidental" fire.

time2roll wrote:
Everybody loves the old owner with no mortgage and a big smile that has no need to press the prices and make sad faces. New owner has to pay market price, finance the purchase and probably catch up on some deferred maintenance so the price increases. I still think he could have honored the original reservation to retain some goodwill. I would pass at least one year and think about the value.

This right here.
Look at difference of price of an established business/campground 30 years ago compared to today. I know just 18 years ago it cost us $13 to camp at the local State Park. That now costs around $43 a night. The state has owned that land tax free forever.
Now consider a new campground owner with a huge mortgage to pay along with taxes.

Lantley wrote:
In the end the new owner is entitled to run his new place however he wants including raising rates.
I agree it would be a preferred to accommodate existing reservations at there original price.
However if the new owners has found the original rates to be too low he does not have to lose money by honoring the rates.
The new owner certainly understands raising the rates is controversial, however they may see it as a necessary evil to be profitable

Business Capitalism and profits must be based on "keeping agreements". Failure to keep agreements, personal,business or legal is pretty much how the Mafia ran their businesses !!!!

Super_Dave wrote:
Every year at the end of our season we make our reservations for the following year. In that reservation is a listed price. Well, this off season the KOA was sold to new owners and I was notified that the price would go up 25%. Does that seem reasonable that the new owner can not honor a standing reservation? And to add insult to injury, they want to move us to a less desirable site.

That would not be allowed in California. You buy the place, you buy all warranties, liabilities, ect.