Let me get this straight: you stay at a hotel, where you blindly agree that they can charge your card “to pay for damages” but you don’t sign anything that specifies what constitutes damage and what the charges may be for that damage? You’d be absolutely insane to do that - one scuff mark on the wall and you’re out $1000.
Or, more likely, you actually do enter into a more comprehensive agreement than you realise - perhaps during the booking process, or even implicitly by simply staying in the property.
> but you don’t sign anything that specifies what constitutes damage and what the charges may be for that damage
I neither said nor implied any such thing.
> you actually do enter into a more comprehensive agreement than you realise
Why would the agreement I entered into be something other than the one I read and signed?
> perhaps during the booking process
Booking is as simple as calling the hotel to reserve a room, then paying when I get there, usually with a couple pages of paperwork to read through. What part of that process sneaks a legally binding contract I've never read into the equation?
> implicitly by simply staying in the property
And implicitly by replying to my last comment you owe damages of $50.... That's not how contracts work. There might be some non-contractual reason why staff are allowed to enter, or else those hotels might have different paperwork from everywhere I've stayed (hence my question). Implied contracts are a thing, but they arise from ordinary social "contracts," not to grant special, previously unspecified, powers like goons rifling through your things. What's the legal theory that would give a hotel that much power, and if that power is real why would they stop at something as small as sending goons?
Or, more likely, you actually do enter into a more comprehensive agreement than you realise - perhaps during the booking process, or even implicitly by simply staying in the property.