Old Apr 2, 06, 12:20 am
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, MA USA
Posts: 1,556
How can the airlines claim that it isn't a contract to provide transportation on a specific date, or even a specific time, when they charge different (sometimes dramatically different) prices to travel at a specific time on a specific date? For them to be able to change the date/times without consequence after a deal has been struck doesn't seem either fair or equitable, especially considering since most often the price goes up as it gets closer to the date of departure, that the cost to procur replacement transportation equivalent to that originally bargained for will likely be much higher than what was originally paid. Imagine you contract to buy a new sedan and the dealer, after the contract has been signed, says he will only give you a sedan with a ding in the fender or your money back. Now consider that the cost of new sedan in the marketplace has increased in between the time you entered the contract and the time the dealer says he's going to breach the original deal. If your only rememdy is to take the sedan with a ding or get your money back, either way you suffer. A refund of the original price does not make you whole because the cost to get a replacement for the sedan you contracted for has now increased in price, and your refund won't cover the current cost. In that case, we'd all agree that you should be placed in the same position as you had bargained for, such that the dealer should be liable for the difference between what you contracted, and the cost to procur a similar replacement. Are you saying that isn't the case with the purchase of an airline ticket?

I can't think of too many other contractual situations where one party can unilaterally change the terms of a deal after the bargain has been completed, and the other party's only remedy is to accept an inferior product than what was originally paid for, or get a refund and no product. How come the airlines are not forced to make the other party whole? In any other contractual situation, the party who is breaching the agreement can be forced to pay the difference between what was paid for the original product that wasn't provided, and the cost to procur a replacement product of similar quality to what was bargained for. Can someone explain why is it different for the airlines?

Last edited by hhonorman; Apr 2, 06 at 12:44 am
hhonorman is offline