Originally Posted by
alex_b
Surely the OP would merely need to show he was induced into the contract by misrepresentation (the advertisement of Business (Z)) and therefore is entitled to the benefit of the bargain because of this. This should be even easier as United is (should be?) deemed to be expert in airline fares and OP is not, therefore UA's misrepresentation is harder to escape.
It's not merely show. It's provide a preponderance of the evidence that it was UA's SPECIFIC intent here to deceive the OP. At the point that evidence comes out, to wit there has been none, P wins.