Originally Posted by
navigator4309
...The DOT rules have over-ridden this general principle: with respect to airline tickets, mistake is no longer a reliable defense to unilaterally repudiating a contract....
Ethics, morality, and intentions are all fine discussions, but they are irrelevant to the question of whether the law requires these tickets to be honoured. So are all the analogies to other types of purchases.
1) Slow down there, cowboy. The DoT rules are only an agency's interpretation of a statute. Not only are they subject to continuous re-interpretation by the implementing agency, but they are also subject to review by courts. In such a review, the courts would consider the intent of the agency's authorizing legislation over all else, which could call into question whether mistakes are covered at all, since the intent (even as DoT states) is to protect consumers against deceptive acts. If you equate programming error with deception without establishing motive/intent to deceive, well, I can't help you there, and neither probably can DoT. (I'm not saying this is what is or ought to be, just pointing out it's not so cut and dried.)
2) Our legal system is all about analogies. It is the job of each side to demonstrate how this case is analogous to previous rulings, why or why doesn't a particular rule apply to a different case, how ruling in your favor would apply to future analogous cases. This is what case law is all about. (Not to say any of the analogies presented here have been particularly convincing one way or the other.)