Originally Posted by
tom911
If you look at the UA website today, they're promising lifetime Global Services status to those that reach 4MM. The word "lifetime" is right at the top of the page. It's a long road to 4MM and I'd hate to be the UA flyer that gets there to find lifetime benefits taken away. Sounds like you're saying that UA can just change their mind tomorrow for those that are promised "lifetime" benefits even today.
-
Hi tom,
Your analogy is right on point.
UA continues to single out specific elite levels to make lifetime promises such as you just pointed out.
As I wrote, the OP needs to connect the dots, which he failed to do.
-
Originally Posted by
colpuck
Lets assume two facts
1) all the plaintiff wants is the program to go back to the way it was.
and
2) UA has knowledge of fact 1.
Since UA has taken no action in light of those two facts we can derive one of two things
1) fact number one is in fact false, and the Plaintiff wants more than the restoration of previous benefits. or
2) UA has no intention of restoring the previous benefits and is willing to fight for that.
-
Unfortunately, this post does not make sense.
For example, you hypothesize that "all the plaintiff wants is the program to go back to the way it was."
Then you state, "1) fact number one is in fact false, and the Plaintiff wants more than the restoration of previous benefits."
There is a class action complaint filed with the court. What leads you to believe or hypothesize that "the Plaintiff wants more than the restoration of previous benefits?"
The class action complaint clearly discusses what the plaintiff wants.
Therefore, it baffles me why would you imply that the plaintiff wants more than the restoration of previous benefits?
Unless you know the plaintiff personally, and he told you, in confidence, that he wants more than the class action complaint states, why would you write what you wrote?
-