Originally Posted by
alex_b
So are you saying that provided an agent is ignorant of what they're selling (they believe Z is a business class seat) and because of that ignorance the product is mis-described (they advertise a Z seat as business) such that the purchaser is misled, there is a mutual mistake and hence no contract? In your view would the same be the case if the (Z) hadn't appeared after Business statement on the purchase screen?
I understand how you may believe that the small print (fare rules) may absolve United of any responsibility. Would you say the same is true if I'm sold a 32" TV advertised as a 64" TV provided I'm given the opportunity to open the box and check in the store but don't chose to do so until I'm home? Provided the store had merely been incompetent in their advertising would you say I'm due nothing more than a refund?
Mistaken not ignorant. If the facts were different you may get a different outcome.
I don't believe that small print always controls. However, the presumption is that the terms are valid until the Plaintiff proves them invalid. That's where dgcpaphd and Urbanegent hit the wall. In fact the first thing the fare rules tell you is what the class of service is.
Lets look at your TV hypo
You're trying to show when you should get a 64in for a 32in price. it seems that if you have a 64in tv labeled with a 32in price you get it. but that's not what happened here. here you have 64in tv labeled with a 32 in tv model number and price. Now the store says 32in model and delivers and the buyer says it's a 64in tv. it's up to the plaintiff to prove why the box should control over the price sticker.
Originally Posted by
mgcsinc
I don't even know what to say. This whole time, you've been talking about mutual mistake, an affirmative defense. Now you're talking about the plaintiff's case? Ken is not the one being sued. You have things very, very muddled. You understand that mutual mistake is an affirmative defense, right? This is first-year law school stuff.
Actually if you read the cases on mutual mistake, it's almost always the Plaintiff trying to get out of the contract. Here it's much the same, UA is perfectly happy to let ken travel on his economy ticket. It's up to Ken to prove why he is legally entitled to something else.
Originally Posted by
alex_b
So in your reading of US law, if somebody wants the benefit of the bargain for something that they bought but was misadvertised, you believe the burden of proof is to the criminal standard (for fraud) rather than simply the civil standard (based on misinterpretation).
That's pretty muddled. The Plaintiff always carries the burden of proof, if he meets it then the defendant/respondent can prove an affirmative defense.
You are correct that people are entitled to the benefit of their bargain. This isn't a breech of K issue like the million miler. This is a question of contract construction.
If it's a valid contract as issued then the OP is entitled to his economy seat and that's that.
If the OP can prove there is mutual mistake, the he is entitled to have contract rescinded. In opposition UA's argument is that OP is consciously ignorant of the rules he was provided and therefore OP needs to bare the risk of any mistakes.
If the OP wants more than that and wants UA to pay some sort of damages then the OP has to prove by the civil standard that UA fraudulently induced him into the contract and stood to benefit from that inducement. UA's argument is still going that OP was consciously ignorant of the contract when he signed.