> It would've been easy for them to say no and "well, sue us if you dare!"

But the headlines.

"Sweet Suite Deal Means Suits Dealt Suit"

"President in Suit Sued over Presidential Suite"

&c

Did you ever work for Variety Magazine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_nix_hick_pix

I think he might actually work for our local rag:

    COUNCIL CALLS
    IN COUNSELLORS
     TO COUNSEL
     COUNCILLORS

Proof: http://31.media.tumblr.com/16e7faf98531c86485462d3a64f04ff6/...

There are many other amusing examples of their editorial finesse out there for those who care to look.

"Commenter Picks 'Sticks Nix Hick Pix' Citation for Upvote But Denies Variety Job History."

Bob Loblaw lobs law bomb.

At the level of customer that the Fairmont deals with, losing any Platinum customer would be a major deal for them.

They also realize that one negative customer experience in their line of work gets retold over, and over, and over. Taunting customers with "go ahead, sue us!" would be a P/R disaster of even larger magnitude if it got public. Didn't we just see an HN discussion on how rage spreads faster than good news?

It was cheaper for them to honor the deal in the long run. Upgrades are one of the cheapest things hotels can give away, when you think about it.

And yet, many companies choose to act that way. The RIAA and MPAA companies come to mind, in particular. You might argue that they're just protecting their products from piracy, but when it comes to things like the blank CD-R tax and DRM keeping you from backing up your own files, they definitely are that bellicose in my opinion, and I think they've destroyed their goodwill.

I would never categorize the RIAA and MPAA as service-oriented companies. I believe this is comparing apples and oranges.

What would be involved with winning such a suit? Would it really be difficult to hold a company to the deal they had given you in writing?

Depends on the fine print. The fine print on such things often has a disclaimer along the lines of "not responsible for errors."