Originally Posted by
mother-
I think you're confusing you being "convinced" about the meaning to people agreeing that it means that. I fail to even see a way to read it the way you want, it would require redefining commonly understood English.
To demonstrate fraud or justify accusations of a scam, they'd need to be intentionally misleading the customer, not merely doing a poor job of being clear. This doesn't mean that customers have to agree my interpretation - clearly you and many others don't. Rather, they'd have to be getting duped by language that is explicitly promising something not provided. If the language was to the effect of all AILUT fares being eligible, that would be one thing, but in no way does it make that offer.
Originally Posted by
rylan
If a contract is written so as to be vague, isn't the more beneficial interpretation applied to the consumer?
Even if so, it wouldn't meet the standard of fraud. No interpretation asserts they are promising all AILUT fares are eligible; the very nature of the word "limited" involves restriction.
Originally Posted by
gooselee
I agree with mooper's interpretation of "limited in" (however unclear that might be), but now my question is about the T&C's that mother- posted earlier, where it seems that there is language out there using "limited to" language.
I'm curious to know who else has seen the "limited to" language, and where.
Amazing how two letters can make such a difference in the right context.
Unless I missed it,
mother nor anyone else has cited "limited to" language. It is "limited in". As you point out, that makes a big difference. "in" can only be a subset (limited) within them, with AILUT being the boundaries.
Of course, trumping any confusion is the *additional* clarifying language:
may not be available on all flights or markets
Applicable fare basis code
Nothing vague there. To whatever degree flights are limited in AILUT, they still may not be available on all flights or markets and there are only certain fare basis codes that apply.