Originally Posted by
NickB
in both cases, it is about preserving the integrity of the airline's tariff structure. In the case of return tickets, this is, in particular a way to protect the minimum stay requirements and therefore charge different fares for a primarily business clientele and for a primarily leisure clientele.
.
This is more than clear. It does not make it legitimate. Customers are by no means obliged to do what is required to protect the supplier's malpractices.
Originally Posted by
NickB
I certainly cannot see a killer argument that would be likely to secure the agreement of most courts. Perhaps you have such a killer argument. But if you have, you have kept it to yourself up to now.
My argument is that in a contractual relationship, the obligations of the seller (or service provider) and the buyer are not the same.
The seller has the obligation to supply the goods or service and the buyer has the obligation to pay.
If both comply, that is it.
The seller has the obligation to supply, but the buyer does not have in any way the obligation to fly. If he has paid, the service is his and he does what he wants.
The fact that the seller would have like to charge more if he had known that etc. is BS. The seller's desires are the last of my priorities. If he agrees to sell me a ticket, it is my business if I use it or not.
It may be more complicated to argue in court in the case of a multi-segment tickets, but in the case of a return ticket, the argument is : I paid for a service I did not use. I paid to have the right to fly. I did not pay to have the obligation to fly.
