Originally Posted by
Truthmonkey
Unless the Canadian courts differ significantly from those in the US and the UK Small Claims Court decisions are not precedent-setting. There is no lower Court upon which they would be binding.
To clarify, I did not mean to suggest the court's decision would be binding. I meant that BA's
position in court in this case could be used against it in a future case. I doubt it would be binding, but it would be at least awkward for BA to contradict itself in a future case about whether its own fine print controls.
There's about two grand at stake in this case. There might be two million, two hundred million, or two billion in a future BA case that involves whether or not its fine print is binding. BA should think very carefully about the position it takes in this small claims case.
Originally Posted by
bisonrav
First thing that happens now is all tariffs are reviewed and reissued, creative routings ironed out, perks where there is benefit of the doubt removed. Most of us will lose from this.
I think we can all agree that it's a good thing that airlines remove the heli ride, silver cutlery and cigarettes from its contractual fine print if they have no intention of providing any of that.
Still, how will "most of us lose from this" long-overdue revisit of an airline's stale, vintage contractual terms? Specifically, how will any of us lose anything?