VDB Bait & Switch: The new norm?
Dec 15, 2018, 6:26 am
#106
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,481
Dec 18, 2018, 9:27 pm
#107
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy LT Gold, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Diamond, others
Posts: 12,159
Could you please post a pointer to your audio copy of the conversation, since you appear to know exactly what was said? (If the OP had said "I accept your offer of 250" it would still have created a contract. Even "I accept your offer" would.)
Dec 19, 2018, 12:58 pm
#108
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,481
If it makes you happy, you are free to change the facts or dream about what would have happened, if the OP were a liar.
Dec 19, 2018, 6:21 pm
#109
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy LT Gold, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Diamond, others
Posts: 12,159
Dec 19, 2018, 8:53 pm
#110
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, GA, LH, QR, SV, TK
Posts: 17,008
Why do apparently sensible people let themselves get dragged into get into these silly squabbles ?
With the shifting sands they're based on, no-one ever wins.
With the shifting sands they're based on, no-one ever wins.
Dec 20, 2018, 12:43 am
#111
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,481
In fact it‘s quiet easy:
The OP won’t sue anyone.
My conclusion is, that you should fix all important details of the deal immediately, if you gave up your seat voluntarily.
Your conclusion is, that you should lie in front of a court for having a slightly better chance to get EUR 250,-.
Even if there is right or wrong from the legal point of view about that, everyone is free to chose, what he will do in that kind of situation.
I‘ve followed my own advice before a couple of times successfully. How did it work out, when you followed your advice before?
Dec 20, 2018, 1:23 am
#112
Moderator: SAS
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: BLL & CPH & ZRH
Programs: LX, SK EBD (*G)
Posts: 3,152
The important point would be what the OP said to the agent. Since none of us here have a transcript of what was said it is pointless to argue about it, since we will all fall back on the same two or three ways this could go.
I would argue that an announcement over loudspeeker could be seen as binding offer (although limited in number). However, a binding offer must be as clear and detailed that one could simply accept it by the words „I agree.“ I‘m not sure this is the case here.
Furthermore regarding contract: If both partners explain the same but do not want the same (because their discussion was not detailed enough or another reason) the contract is still regarded as legal, however, which way the contract would be laid out if the payment hadn‘t been stated (no 250 euro vs 250 euro) would be decided regarding the following question: Was it reasonable to assume the payment would be 250 or 0?
I would argue it was reasonable to assume based on the prior announcement that one would receive 250 euro. (based on how the announcement was said this could change: Like when they said up to 250 ... or maybe.) But especially since the payment of 250 euro was a fundamental point without which the OP would not have entered the contract or even discussion for it. But this is up to debate.
However, if they agreed on 250 euros while talking, we can all agree OP would be entitled to the payment. But this does not seem to be the case here.
Just my two cents.
I would argue that an announcement over loudspeeker could be seen as binding offer (although limited in number). However, a binding offer must be as clear and detailed that one could simply accept it by the words „I agree.“ I‘m not sure this is the case here.
Furthermore regarding contract: If both partners explain the same but do not want the same (because their discussion was not detailed enough or another reason) the contract is still regarded as legal, however, which way the contract would be laid out if the payment hadn‘t been stated (no 250 euro vs 250 euro) would be decided regarding the following question: Was it reasonable to assume the payment would be 250 or 0?
I would argue it was reasonable to assume based on the prior announcement that one would receive 250 euro. (based on how the announcement was said this could change: Like when they said up to 250 ... or maybe.) But especially since the payment of 250 euro was a fundamental point without which the OP would not have entered the contract or even discussion for it. But this is up to debate.
However, if they agreed on 250 euros while talking, we can all agree OP would be entitled to the payment. But this does not seem to be the case here.
Just my two cents.
Dec 20, 2018, 2:06 am
#114
Moderator: SAS
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: BLL & CPH & ZRH
Programs: LX, SK EBD (*G)
Posts: 3,152
Dec 20, 2018, 4:29 pm
#116
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy LT Gold, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Diamond, others
Posts: 12,159
That you think, my post means me admitting that, shows your capability of logical thinking.
In fact it‘s quiet easy:
The OP won’t sue anyone.
My conclusion is, that you should fix all important details of the deal immediately, if you gave up your seat voluntarily.
Your conclusion is, that you should lie in front of a court for having a slightly better chance to get EUR 250,-.
Even if there is right or wrong from the legal point of view about that, everyone is free to chose, what he will do in that kind of situation.
I‘ve followed my own advice before a couple of times successfully. How did it work out, when you followed your advice before?
You claim OP would be lying if he told a court what he said, and it wasn't what you invented that he said?
Why is your version of what OP and the GA said definitive, given that OP never reported anything like what you claim? I know when they make a general VDB offer and I accept it, I go to the GA and tell them that I'm there to accept their offer. Even if, technically, they didn't make an offer but only requested one, my "acceptance" then constitutes an offer, and if they rebook me on a later flight, they thereby accept it.
Dec 21, 2018, 12:52 am
#117
Moderator: SAS
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: BLL & CPH & ZRH
Programs: LX, SK EBD (*G)
Posts: 3,152
Dec 21, 2018, 1:41 pm
#118
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2006
Location: TUN
Programs: TK E+
Posts: 11,230
That's called "voluntary denied boarding". Look it up.
That isn't stopping you. The Greeks had a word for that.
And OP was denied the ability to buy wine in Switzerland and flew a lesser (in OP's opinion, the only one that matters) airline TATL.
Most importantly: a *contract* was violated. The GA made an offer, OP accepted and performed. The GA then committed a Trump.
That isn't stopping you. The Greeks had a word for that.
And OP was denied the ability to buy wine in Switzerland and flew a lesser (in OP's opinion, the only one that matters) airline TATL.
Most importantly: a *contract* was violated. The GA made an offer, OP accepted and performed. The GA then committed a Trump.
Thats' pathetic
