CZAMFlyer

Well, if one wants to garner attention and set oneself apart from the norm...

vernonc

I agree that the case will likely never see the inside of a courtroom. So why did AC not come to a agreement before this reached this stage ? This case was hardly about them being ripped off given the amount DC was spending with them. Nor was it precedent setting though it may be now. And the costs associated for both parties. Someone dug in their heels.

skybluesea

Exactly, it is remarkable what even the most FF believes, ultimately because they choose to believe what they want, NOT what is actually agreed to - and then whine to regulators and politicians when the terms of the agreement are actually enforced by AC,

And in the case of AC tariff, well, it is abundantly evident that AC has the ABSOLUTE right to refund your money if reasonable means are NOT available to get you to destination, but we have posts from seasoned FF here that AC cannot unilaterally cancel such a contract - I shake my head when I see this...

and for the specifics of this case, AC is asserting that the terms of the agreement with WONG was being abused and the \ manner in which AC has responded to this assertion is now being tested by WONG...one of these parties is right and one is wrong....

Stranger

If anyone would have taken the airline to court, they would very likely have won.

At least in Canada and if they would have insisted with the original deal. Of course if they let themselves be bullied and accepted the refund, then they accepted...

Stranger

A clause in a contract that allows one party to unilaterally cancel the deal cannot possibly be enforceable, otherwise the contract is not a contract. No matter what tariffs say. No matter what the CTA approves or not. No matter what the other party agreed with or not.

This said, if it has not changed since last time I looked, I believe the AC tariffs did sort of acknowledge that refunding required the passenger's agreement.

skybluesea

Really, news to me, so all the lawyers who looked over the airport land leases I have negotiated in Canada must have been completely bonkers then, when we included forced cancellation clauses in case of future need, based on any new Airport MasterPlan that in due course to be valid had to be approved by the Minister of Transport - of course compensation is due for lost business and replacement asset yet this is absolutely a common agreed clause, and enforceable if the parties agree.

and AC Intl Tariff, Sec 100 clearly distinguishes between voluntary and INVOLUNTARY REFUNDS that AC can act upon at their sole discretion.

can we possibly agree that the tariff is widely NOT READ by customers, and when the terms are pointed out to them, pretty common for aggrieved travelers to say how can this possibly apply to me?

It will be most interesting to see if AC responds to this lawsuit with the absolute bare minimum response to WONG claims, or undertakes a fulsome attack on WONG claims with counter-claims that WONG has violated the Tariff in various ways, and possibly other matters we are yet to find out about.

garykung

This case will still see the inside of a courtroom, literally, as I believe that the case planning/management conference should have been scheduled

Because it may not be AC's fault at all. OP's side of the incident has been spelled out in the statement of claims. However, no one knows or answers what exactly AC has against OP. Just because AC has tons of bad press, it does not mean AC is always at fault.

To settle a case, a party will need to consider several factors, such as strengths/weaknesses of the case, costs, etc. FWIW - AC could have been negotiating settlement with OP. Because of settlement privilege, OP can't say this out loud.

These things take time.

As a matter of law, just because a party having unilateral authority to cancel the deal does not mean it is not enforceable. In fact, it can be enforceable in many instances, especially in this case.

FWIW - no one reads these things, until they are screwed.

longtimeflyin

Touche! I needed that laugh after a long day. Well done!!

Stranger

That's not unilateral cancellation. It specifies specific conditions outside the control of one of the parties. Plus, it's in the future, not an outright cancellation.

That I believe refers to voluntary or involuntary on the passenger side. If they now claim the right to cancel at their sole discretion, I do not believe the latter part would be valid within contract law. But of course as long as people believe they can, they win.

sexykitten7

That's a good point. The contract provides a get out of jail free card in the event of IRROPs but AC can't just cancel someone's ticket because they feel like it.

Here's the specific language governing IRROPs INVOL CXLs. Note that the customer need not consent as I suspected. AC Intl Tariff Rule 80(C)4(d).

vernonc

Because it may not be AC's fault at all. OP's side of the incident has been spelled out in the statement of claims. However, no one knows or answers what exactly AC has against OP. Just because AC has tons of bad press, it does not mean AC is always at fault.

To settle a case, a party will need to consider several factors, such as strengths/weaknesses of the case, costs, etc. FWIW - AC could have been negotiating settlement with OP. Because of settlement privilege, OP can't say this out loud.

These things take time.

I understand it may not be AC's fault. But given the risks involved including PR, risk of losing, setting a precedent if they lose, having their internal workings listed out in court, deposition of key personnel - you would think they would close this off quick. Just because they think its not their fault does not mean you do not settle. Going to court against a supposedly deep pocketed customer who may also have been spending well with your company does not make for sound business practice. Note I am not debating the merits and legalities of the case, just the business risks.

Stranger

Tariffs are one thing. Will hold with the CTA. If indeed they say that without some additional restriction (which I am pretty sure used to be there) it's pure bullying. Would never hold in court.

jazzsax

Drunk Cargo's Lawyer:



Air Canada's in house counsel

skybluesea

garykung

Even assuming AC has agreed to settle the case, it still takes months for the settlement to be finalized.

These take time. And there is no way to reduce it.