Originally Posted by
dilanesp
There are significant problems with bringing a civil suit, especially if the DOT rules against the passengers.
But despite Ginsberg, in any such suit, (1) contract law would apply, (2) it is at least arguable that the "abusive or illogical" provision does not apply to an mistake fare (it's a contract of adhesion, terms are construed against the drafter, and I bet there's drafting history that the term had nothing to do with mistake fares), and (3) the plaintiff would at the very least be able to cite the DOT rule and argue that it preempts the doctrine of contractual mistake with respect to airline tickets-- the lack of a private right of action is not dispositive on this piont.
I think if the DOT were to rule in the passengers' favor, despite the points you make, a civil suit could become an intriguing possibility. However, if the DOT rules against the passengers, it would be extremely tough because the common law doctrine of unilateral mistake clearly permits UA's actions (at least with respect to most of the tickets) and the DOT's interpretation of its own regulation would be given deference.
(1)Ginsberg wouldn't stop a suit to enforce a contract as written, it would however eliminate arguments involving things such as good faith or fair dealing, (2) I'd bet the history of abusive, etc. is to give UA the maximum flexibility to do whatever it wanted (hard to overcome this without fair dealing, etc.) and (3) I doubt a court would allow what would essentially be a private right of action to enforce DOT regs.
If the DOT were to rule in the passenger's favor a civil suit would seem unnecessary.