Originally Posted by
irishguy28
....so there's no contest that the passenger paid the "incorrect" fare, right?
Without needing to know what the actual fare would have been, you appear to agree conclusively that the passenger obtained a lower fare.
(Forgive me if your argumentation is that it can't be proved that the fare flown wasn't actually identical to the fare paid in every single such case, and that therefore the passenger paid exactly the right amount...that would appear to be a very weak line of argumentation though...)
My argument is that trying to figure out the "correct" fare as a basis for AA's damages is extraordinarily difficult well after the fact. Jurors certainly won't understand it when even AA will have difficulty understanding, explaining, or calculating it. And that is only if you accept the premise that something of an "opportunity cost" model of fare differential is actually economic damage to AA in the first place. The more I talk though this the more I think I would refuse to award AA any damages at all.
AA received the full benefit of the bargain; they collected revenue for a ticket sale. The passenger skipped part of his itinerary which resulted in LESS cost incurred by AA (or the same cost if you assume the seat on the skipped segment was ultimately filled by a standby passenger, no change in cost incurred)
I would not enforce the contract if AA brought a breach of contract action against a passenger who jumped off an itinerary at the connect point.