I should start off by saying that I'm a third year law student and have been studying for finals all day. With all the thought about law, I though I'll through one out there that I've always wondered about.

Why is the contract of carriage part of the contract. Generally the terms of a contract consists of the terms that the parties have assented to. If a term is unclear, a court will generally assume one that is reasonable. Aside from maybe the airlines reputation for awful terms, it could hardly be said that the contract of carriage is reasonable or what most would assume. Overbooking, misconnections, schedule change etc.

I can see perhaps allowing the terms for tickets purchased online, or from sophisticated travelers who know. Online there are at least mentions that the contract applies. While it may be small print, there is at least notice that additional terms apply. If you purchase over the phone however, there is absolutely no notice. Agents are not trained to say that there are additional terms. Go here to read them. They just mention nothing. So the question I have is how are these terms binded upon the contract.

One way that this is done for consumer products is inside the packaging. A famous case deals with terms for software and since they can not put them all on the box, they were inside the box. However those cases made it clear that upon opening the box, if you disagreed with the terms you have a right to reject them and return the product. I know that even with phone purchases airlines still send a receipt which surely mentions the contract of carriage. However airlines tickets are not refundable. I don't think they woul accept if I recieved my eticklet recipet and then called them up and said I reject these terms.

I asked my contracts professor about this. He told me that since most know of these terms anyways it would be hard to argue that you were unaware. He did think that you would have a decent argument if you could really show that you were unaware.

Thoughts?