Originally Posted by
Keter
I got an IB informal claim reply from CTA about a week ago but still did not have time to properly read it. To summarise (can't guarantee accuracy as of now):
1) IB Canadian tariff exists and contains provisions for error fares (?; would like to get it)
2) IB Canadian tariff only allows IB ticketed transatlantic fares if IB is the first carrier and this is one reason why IB claims the ticket was invalid - this is nonsense of course as all tickets were autopriced and its IB who failed to properly put the tariff rules into the system
3) They seem to know about LX case and refer to FT and other forums in a way I already saw here (probably in LX reply of case)
Once I have time to read it, I may post more depending on the circumstances.
So finally read the CTA reply.
IB is making the following statements:
1) Fares invalid due to ATPCO's error and Canadian law/ courts would support IB's position that travellers wanted to take advantage of IB mistake
2) 'Fundamental issues with contract enforceability' with ref to 3 provisions of their tariff (as I now read they refer to another version of the Canadian tariff in effect on 28 September 2012)
-2a) IB has right to change or cancel without any notice before travel has commenced
-2b) For transatlantic carriage ex Area3 IB had to be the first carrier in the ticket
-2c) IB can refuse transportation if the applicable fare etc was not paid (and they claim of course the fare paid was invalid)
My view
1) The reference to Canadian view of contract law is irrelevant because the applicable contract law is Spanish []. And under Spanish law they failed to perform the actions within a reasonable period of time. Full stop
And yes, some provisions of Canadian law may also apply, ie consumer protection
2) All irrelevant bla-bla
-2a) Ref irrelevant because it is bound law requirements contained in the same rule (ie a party cannot unilaterally cancel a contract)
-2b) Irrelevant because tickets were autopriced
-2c) Irrelevant because the fare was paid and validity is another question
Basically they are very very weak in their statements in my view.