Originally Posted by
dilanesp
I see the point of the DOT rule- it protects someone who comes upon a fare on an airline website, buys it, and then engages in all sorts of trip planning and arrangements, only to get the rug pulled out later. It addresses a real problem.
But the argument made here is disproven by the rest of contract law. 99 percent of consumer contracts are subject to the doctrine of unilateral mistake should they contain one. And yet nobody is actually using that doctrine to bait and switch people. And that's because it is actually really easy to distinguish between a good deal and a mistake, and the seller has the burden of proof and has to convince a jury to let them out.
Obviously it is possible to legally allow some contracts to be rescinded in extreme situations without making the entire marketplace caveat emptor.
Obviously the doctrine cannot apply when DOT rules explicitly say mistakes must be honored and contracts cannot be unilaterally cancelled.
You can allow legally some contracts to be rescinded, just not in the case of airline travel and fully ticketed and paid for reservations whereas it states they cannot be
Nobody uses that to bait and switch people because it is not often that a regular consumer signs a large legal contract when purchasing an item