TG: BKK-ARN, business class, rt $1068 USD - get in quick!

[Chicken]

From memory, that's what I did (i.e. sued for breach of contract).

In my case, the word "repudiate" was never mentioned at trial. Maybe I got lucky.

None of these would matter, because you bought a ticket, airline sold it to you, then it was cancelled. These are the facts of the events, which you and the airline agreed / undisputed. What you were fighting for were these, but it was the damage.

The difference in the fare cost I sued for was more than $2000. I also didn't need to provide evidence of a replacement ticket (indeed, I didn't have one). I didn't have to pay costs associated with the airline's representatives travelling form interstate.

Despite the airline being represented (pre-hearing; only airline representatives attended in court) by one of the five largest law firms in the world, I won my case and the airline paid in full.

Did you reach an agreement with the airline reps, or did you actually needed the magistrate to make a judgement?

 

[Chicken]

And yet, in the Swiss cases the reason the claims were denied - for the vast majority - was because they *didn’t* call the airline.

Do you have any link to that case?

With no knowledge of that case, I wonder if there is something to do with our common law system which is I think less flexible and really rely on precedent.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Do you have any link to that case?

With no knowledge of that case, I wonder if there is something to do with our common law system which is I think less flexible and really rely on precedent.

Decision No. 202-C-A-2014 | Canadian Transportation Agency

otc-cta.gc.ca

Turned on mistake and equity to set aside the contract.

 

[Chicken]

Decision No. 202-C-A-2014 | Canadian Transportation Agency

otc-cta.gc.ca

I cannot see anything about Swiss Air having to compensate any of the passengers at all. In fact, the Agency's order, was pretty much calling the passengers who bought the cheap tickets 'BS'. Some of the highlights:

[46]

"The Agency finds that given that the mistaken fares were approximately one percent of the correct fare, it is clear that Swiss did not intend for the fares to be made available for sale and that their release was indeed a mistake"

So the Agency really said, don't pretent that you are naive or stupid. You knew you are taking the airline for a flight, when you bought a cheap ticket.

[49]

"A number of complainants also provided examples of heavily discounted first and business class fares for travel between certain distant city pairs, and situations where economy fares between two points are more than first class fares, to indicate that the fares at issue would not be considered a mistake. The Agency considers that these fares could be anomalies and in their own right, could have been mistaken fares."

So the Agency is saying, don't even try and argue that, just because Royal Brunei is selling MEL > LHR for $2000 in J, you could then argue that CX selling $2000 is a legit fare. You know CX always sells MEL > LHR for $7000, not $2000, you should fully well know that you are taking CX for a flight.

[50]

"The fact that none of the complainants raised the mistake with the carrier leads the Agency to conclude that they intended to benefit from it."

And here is the point I guess you have been trying to make, the difference between confirming and not confirming the ticket.

However, if you look at the full judgement, the Agency was very critical of the people who bought the cheap tickets, the agency basically, point after point, saying that, the customers, knowingly took Swiss Air for a ride, despite Swiss Air tried to kill the tickets early. The whole judgement was NOT based on whether the passengers confirmed with Swiss or not, but was based on, that the customers knew that the 'contracts' were not drawn and accepted on good faith, hence the contracts were not valid.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The whole judgement was NOT based on whether the passengers confirmed with Swiss or not, but was based on, that the customers knew that the 'contracts' were not drawn and accepted on good faith, hence the contracts were not valid.

My take was that the contracts were voided on the grounds of mistake. Those are set out clearly in the judgment:

[17] In summary therefore, the equitable jurisdiction of the courts to relieve against mistake in contract comprehends situations where one party, who knows or ought to know of another’s mistake in a fundamental term, remains silent and snaps at the offer, seeking to take advantage of the other’s mistake. In such cases, it would be unconscionable to enforce the bargain and equity will set aside the contract.

further:

[30] There is also authority for the proposition that rescission may be granted where a party, having an indication that the other party is entering the contract under some serious mistake or misapprehension regarding a fundamental term, either proceeds on a course of willful ignorance designed to inhibit his own actual knowledge of the other’s mistake, or deliberately sets out to ensure that the other party does not become aware of the mistake…

In this case the OP has made contact with the airline and is not trying to conceal the mistake (if it even is one). For TG to turn around at some later stage, after being given fair warning and opportunity to rectify the situation, and claim the contract is invalid due to mistake would be to unfairly disadvantage the passenger if they have relied on the airline's prior confirmation.

In some of the mistake cases the passengers have argued that they called the airline but a recorded message while they were on hold said 'it is no longer necessary to confirm your tickets'. They argued that was their attempt to notify the airline which was then acknowledged by the recorded message. Ridiculous. And not what happened here.

in this case the fare of USD1058 is cheap, but not outside the bounds of reasonableness. And it's not USD108. It was reasonable for the OP to buy the fare and sort out the legitimacy after purchase. Which is what they did.

 

[Chicken]

My take was that the contracts were voided on the grounds of mistake. Those are set out clearly in the judgment:

Agree, and this itself would not have made any material effect to what follows.

[30] ... either proceeds on a course of willful ignorance designed to inhibit his own actual knowledge of the other’s mistake, or deliberately sets out to ensure that the other party does not become aware of the mistake…

In this case the OP has made contact with the airline and is not trying to conceal the mistake (if it even is one). For TG to turn around at some later stage, after being given fair warning and opportunity to rectify the situation, and claim the contract is invalid due to mistake would be to unfairly disadvantage the passenger if they have relied on the airline's prior confirmation.

This part 30 was raised, because it was point of the argument, raised by one / both of the parties (can't be bothered reading the whole thing again).

This is where you have missed the most important point, of whether, you are deliberating accepting a contract which you know is wrong.

If you ask customer service, whether this ticket is OK to travel, customer service say sure no worries. This is just asking if the contract is good on surface, but you have not made the defendant (TG air) aware that the ticket is wrong. For what it is worth, if this was in Canada, the agency could further point the finger at you, that not only you did not accept this contract in good faith, but by asking if the contract is good, but not raising that this contract maybe substantially wrong, that you are further deliberately acting in 'bad' faith.

If you ask customer service, whether this ticket is OK because this ticket is so cheap, customer service says OK, then TG cancels a few days later, the Agency could also come back with their expectation of the airline killing the ticket "no later than 72 hours after the carrier becomes aware of the publishing of a fare".

in this case the fare of USD1058 is cheap, but not outside the bounds of reasonableness.

you missed what I quoted above. Let's check this out again.

[29] Several complainants submit that a number of Swiss’s Star Alliance partners have had ongoing fare sales for transatlantic travel in first and business class in the same range as those in question

Here is your argument, that USD 1000 is cheap, but not that cheap.

Then, the Agency bite back

[48]The Agency has considered these arguments and finds that a reasonable person ought to have known that a total cost of approximately US$1000 for first and business class travel from Yangon to Eastern Canada is not simply a low ticket price, but a mistake.

And even if you provide evidence to support your argument that, USD 1000 is cheap but not that cheap, because many other airlines are selling around the same price ...

[49]The Agency considers that these fares could be anomalies and in their own right, could have been mistaken fares.

I am reading between the line here, but the Agency could be suggesting that, price is only a consideration of the contract, but itself does not indicate if the offer / contract is substantially wrong. This is one of the tests of a contract : consideration. There must be a consideration, but the consideration does not have to be, of 'market value' (sorry I forgot the term now). That means, if I sell you a Samsung S10, I cannot sell it to you for $0 legally, for nothing, because there would be no consideration (I give you phone, I get nothing). However, I can sell you the Samsung S10 for $1, which would be legal, because I am getting $1 from you, despite, in reality, this would be very funny. This is the reason why you hear on the news of companies being sold for $1, because $1 is the consideration. And to summarise this paragraph, this means, the price of the ticket is possibility irrelevant to our discussion at all.

I am not a member of a tribunal, I am not here to argue right or wrong. My point of posting, is to demonstrate:
1 - the risk of buying these tickets, legally;
2 - asking the airline if your 'ultra cheap' ticket is OK to travel, is likely to be pointless, legally;
3 - action 2 above may end up, causing staffs to change their action, from leaving you alone, to cancelling your ticket, politically.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I agree. Which is why I made the point above that the OP simply calling TG and getting a 'surface' approval was not enough. The advice was to email TG, ask them to review the booking, and whether or not they were intending to honour the fare.

I would email (aussie office), or call (but calling doesn’t have a written record) and ask them to review booking reference ABCXYZ, BKK-ARN, wanting to confirm that Thai Airways is going to honour the fare as I will be making associated hotel and connecting flight bookings.

and

Did they acknowledge it was an error fare (or a super special or however we are describing it these days)?

It’s happened with other cheap fares that the booking office doesn’t appreciate the question being asked of them and have said ‘everything’s valid’ simply by looking at the ticket number and not at the underlying fare.

So as long as they have acknowledged it is a super special, that’s good. If they haven’t, you can consider emailing TG in thailand (so avoid asking the same question of TG MEL).

I think the difference here is that the OP did not act dishonestly. They were entitled to buy the fare - if it was legitimate, or if the airline decided to honour the fare - they would have missed out on a great deal.

So they bought the fare, and once the dust settled they contacted TG in writing (or at least could have) to ask the airline to do a deep dive. They also notified the airline they were intending to buy associated travel. The airline always has the ability to cancel - that's not disputed. But the difference here might be the ability for the OP to recover reasonable costs associated with their fair notice to TG, and their reliance on the reply (if it gets received).

I think that's different to the Swiss case where passengers bought the tickets but, as the judgment says, deliberately tried to conceal or ignore the potential for this to be a mistake?

 

[Chicken]

the difference here might be the ability for the OP to recover reasonable costs associated with their fair notice to TG, and their reliance on the reply (if it gets received).

You may still get a call from the airline offering a cancellation free of charge, but you can decline Having something in writing will (a) confirm you’re intention to travel and (b) go a long way to protecting the additional expenses if the airline does cancel out on you.

Your theory didn't work in the case you cited, because the fare was priced wrong according to the airline, and they cancelled the ticket reasonably quickly. This is the key of the judgement.

Generally speaking its a terrible idea to call or email an airline about a fare like this one and it is the exact reason why some people on FT are becoming reluctant to share when amazing deal come up.

In my view it is entirely selfish to potentially kill the trick/deal that is not yours to kill. If you don't have the stomach to wait and see what the airline will do perhaps it's not a game you should play.

Totally correct on this.

Actions similar to those suggested by MEL_Traveller have been done by some people in the credit card section of this forum. Guess what? They have all been shut down by the companies. We learnt the hard way. We have now moved a lot of knowledge sharing to the private messaging system on this forum, not post them in public threads, and we have to filter people who we share knowledge with. This is completely against the spirit of this forum, of knowledge sharing; but some people have, and they still insist on completely ruined it for everyone else. Yep, despite what happened, some people would still come back and said it is 'their right' to 'take legal action' against some card companies

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Your theory didn't work in the case you cited, because the fare was priced wrong according to the airline, and they cancelled the ticket reasonably quickly. This is the key of the judgement.

We agree on that. Hopefully the OP gave sufficient time for TG to respond before booking non-refundable components.

Had the OP emailed TG, received a response that the particular fare was going to be honoured, it would then be unfair for the airline to later rely on the argument of mistake, without responsibility for their actions.

 

[Chicken]

We agree on that. Hopefully the OP gave sufficient time for TG to respond before booking non-refundable components.

To be honest, I seriously don't know how some of the people here, how you could just see a cheap tix and buy it and go "we are going on a holiday!!!". What jobs do you people do?!

 

[Danger]

Did you reach an agreement with the airline reps, or did you actually needed the magistrate to make a judgement?

No, there was no agreement. In pre-trial (I'm not sure if "trial" is the correct term here) mediation, I made an offer to settle that the airline didn't agree to. The airline made an offer to settle that I didn't agree to. The magistrate issued judgment in my favour.

@Admin I wonder if we could siphon off the broader discussion on EFs (with the e being extraordinary) into a standalone thread.

 

[The man with no name]

Actions similar to those suggested by MEL_Traveller have been done by some people in the credit card section of this forum. Guess what? They have all been shut down by the companies. We learnt the hard way. We have now moved a lot of knowledge sharing to the private messaging system on this forum, not post them in public threads, and we have to filter people who we share knowledge with. This is completely against the spirit of this forum, of knowledge sharing; but some people have, and they still insist on completely ruined it for everyone else. Yep, despite what happened, some people would still come back and said it is 'their right' to 'take legal action' against some card companies

Based on discussions with others I can tell you that there is a private group of of people on FT that discuss these "bargain fares" and do not share them publicly for similar reasons. I am not a member of the group but wish i was.

If there's CC deals that are better than those discussed publicly I'd love to hear about them

 

[DC3]

... If there's CC deals that are better than those discussed publicly I'd love to hear about them

...and wouldn’t we all.

 

[The man with no name]

...and wouldn’t we all.

It's some of the "all" that do the wrong thing and spoil it for everyone

 

[The man with no name]

The following was copy/pasted from FT and is applicable to this fare and any like it.

Originally Posted by Tokyoite
As usual, the 5 stages of special discount fares apply.
Please do not use the E word or M word here.
Nobody erroneously or mistakenly set this Christmas discount special. Its Christmas after all!

1. Discovery
- of the discount, multiple messages of how to book creatively or save 10 dollars on the fare. The wise first grab what they can get and then sleep on it, the novices sleep through it or fiddle too much and end up simply spectating.

2. Euphoria
- of booking the fare, getting in on the deal and holiday dreams get set hastily, of course without consulting the spouse/friend/family

3. Stress and speculation
- will it be honored? Was mine cancelled? When will they decide to honor or cancel? Can I book hotels or positioning flights?
Should I tell my spouse/friend/family or wait a little? 24hours free cancel window approaches and stress is at a maximum.

4. Reality check
- Accurate information is obtained (usually takes place a week to 10 days after discount fare is published). Confirmed information from the source/airline as to whether or not tickets will be honored.
Realization that you dont have the paid leave/budget/spouse approval for the ticketed itinerary.

5. Jubilation or anguish-
if honored, many trip reports from those who got the deal of the year or holiday for peanuts, with envy from those who dont monitor this forum on an hourly basis.
if cancelled, many angry and disappointed FlyerTalkers. Refunds are issued. Novices have multiple discussion threads of lawsuits and hostile correspondence, FlyerTalk pros mutter cest la vie and look for the next fare discount special.

https://www.flyertalk.com/articles/t...take-fare.html
We seem to now have reached stage 4.
If anyone mistakenly booked non refundable accommodation/positioning flights while we were still at stage 3, live and learn.
Good (painfully expensive) experience with not waiting for the airlines official position to honor or cancel.

When you have one of these these discount fares, you wait.

 

[Mrmaxwell]

What a silly thread.

If I see a good deal or am I notified of one that's to my liking I will book it. If I am charged and receive the itinerary I assume all is well and plan my trip accordingly. I always book hotels and other needs that can be cancelled at anytime without penalty, and will not dwell endlessly on whether or not the fare is valid.

If I get an email or call about it from the airline I will act accordingly and deal with it there and then, not days/months beforehand.