Originally Posted by
Jambon87
Under Sec75, a credit card issuer is indeed liable for the breach of contract should a airline fail and in will refund the money that the person paid, however a credit card company is not responsible or liable to pay for new flights. Unless you have specific travel insurance with that card provider that covers this.
This is not how I read it. My reading would align with that of
Ldnn1. The effect of s75 CCA is to make the credit card jointly liable with the obligations of the merchant (in our case the airline) under the contract. That is different from the chargeback scheme, which only provides for the refund of sums paid. In so far as the airline would have an obligation to re-route under the contract, the credit card company would be jointly liable to re-route the passenger. If the airline and the credit card company do not fulfill that obligation, then the passenger can self-reroute and seek reimbursement of the rerouting costs.
It seems to me that you treat contractual liability as if it were tortious liability: contractual liability means that you have to put the other party in the position they would be if the contract was performed. What you describe is more like tortious liability, where you put the parties to the position they would be had the tort not been committed.
Originally Posted by
Globaliser
Section 75(1) says:-The reason that I'm inclining to agree with the answer "no" is because it seems arguable that a claim against the supplier under 261/2004 is neither a claim in respect of a misrepresentation, nor a claim in respect of a breach of contract, but is a claim for statutory compensation.
It would be worth checking the wording of the contract. IME, a lot of airlines TandCs reproduce or refer to Reg 261/2004, therefore making the obligation a contractual as well as a statutory one. This, it seems to me, would make the credit card company jointly liable for payment of compensation.