United LHR- New York in F $100 return

[JohnK]

Interesting to see a familiar face pop up in this thread.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

the decision is murky.

while the outcome is fair and equitable, the grounds are somewhat cobbled together, and leaves open the issue of Danish credit card holders not being protected by a piece of regulation that clearly covers them.

had the DOT left it at the 'the fares were not marketed at the U.S.' it would have been tidier.

Not sure about that. I think the line below would rule out the vast majority of people that booked knowing it was a mistake fare as they will not actually have Denmark as their billing address.


by misrepresenting their billing addresscountry as Denmark when, in fact, Denmark was not their billing address country. This evidenceof bad faith by the large majority of purchasers contributed to the Enforcement Office’s decision.

If you are going to take advantage of a mistake, and many of us knowingly do, then IMO you have to be prepared to wear the circumstance of it not coming to fruition.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Not sure about that. I think the line below would rule out the vast majority of people that booked knowing it was a mistake fare as they will not actually have Denmark as their billing address.


by misrepresenting their billing addresscountry as Denmark when, in fact, Denmark was not their billing address country. This evidenceof bad faith by the large majority of purchasers contributed to the Enforcement Office’s decision.

If you are going to take advantage of a mistake, and many of us knowingly do, then IMO you have to be prepared to wear the circumstance of it not coming to fruition.

that concept has its issues because it excludes the passengers resident in denmark, with a danish credit card. Those people would ordinarily have been covered by the DOT regs as they stand.

The problem is the issue of 'bad faith'... accepted in common law, but inconsistent with the DOT regs, which make no provision for it.

 

[burmans]

that concept has its issues because it excludes the passengers resident in denmark, with a danish credit card. Those people would ordinarily have been covered by the DOT regs as they stand.

The problem is the issue of 'bad faith'... accepted in common law, but inconsistent with the DOT regs, which make no provision for it.

Ignoring the crazies on both sides (of whom there are plenty) the more reasonable comments on FT and the blogs suggest that DOT are behaving as if their mooted changes to the regs have already been approved,

E.G. the change to not cover through flights of less than 24 hours is mooted as part of new regs but DOT is behaving as if that has already been enacted.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Ignoring the crazies on both sides (of whom there are plenty) the more reasonable comments on FT and the blogs suggest that DOT are behaving as if their mooted changes to the regs have already been approved,

E.G. the change to not cover through flights of less than 24 hours is mooted as part of new regs but DOT is behaving as if that has already been enacted.

Yeah - no doubt it's sloppy reasoning by the DOT.

They could have gone down the path of the 'full amount agreed upon', and applied a reasonable test to that - protecting the innocent, but not those who have acted in 'bad faith'. While the DOT FAQ explains that having a ticket is evidence that the full amount agreed upon has been paid, the FAQs are not the regs. They are simply that, FAQs.

That would be consistent with accepted contract law concerning mistake.

There is no doubt that the outcome is correct here. It's just the way DOT got to it is confusing.

 

[burmans]

Interesting to see a familiar face pop up in this thread.

Are you referring to this guy?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/avianca-taca-lifemiles/1656736-reactivate-expired-lifemiles.html

I believe he had a booking on this deal.