Last edit by: fti
People, please edit/use the wiki so same questions are not always asked.
The current CTA decision on the Yangon deal is only for tickets canceled by SWISS Airlines for the seven merged complaints/companions and tickets canceled by Jet Airways for one complainant and companions
- It's not about other carriers because each carrier submits different tariffs.
- If you are not one of the complainants or their companions above who were mentioned in the respective cases, you need to submit a case yourself for hearing.
- There's currently one person who is on Iberia for CTA decision, one can either wait for results or submit a complaint to CTA.
Result of the current case for LX in brief is:
- CTA found 5(F) in the tariff used to be unclear for canceling tickets on erroneously quoted fares.
- 5(F) is unjust and unreasonable and must be revised or taken down by July 9, 2013 (or SWISS can appeal by then)
- SWISS did not use its tariff correctly to cancel the tickets.
- SWISS must compensate one complainant's First Class ticket and any related expenses by July 18, 2013 provided with evidence.
- SWISS must transport other complainants (and their companions) in the original price charged with same booking class and routing by June 18, 2014.
Result of the current case for 9W in brief is:
- Tariff on file had no clauses for "erroneous fares" and was updated subsequently, which means it is not relevant to this event
- Therefore, 9W is to reinstate the tickets with a 1-year validity for transport between the same points and the same booking class.
CTA official news can be read here for general overview of the case.
Actual CTA case review can be found here for reference should you wish to file a complaint.
If you have a similar case that's with SWISS, you need to file with CTA to get a result through informal process first before it gets to formal process. The entire procedure can take up to 3 months for each and the result may not be same cause it's case-by-base and the reviewer of the case can be different.
To file an informal complaint with CTA, see here. Click through all of the pages to get to the online form for the informal complaint. Or click here.
To file a formal complaint after informal complaint has been closed, see here. Continue on to the next page to see the address or email address for the formal complaint.
The July 17th and 18th responses from LX can be found here:
Other Letters:
Feel free to add dates, flights, etc., in order to plan DOs, etc.
Aug 4: SFO-ICN (UA893)
Jason8612
Aug 5: ICN-SFO (UA892)
Jason8612
Aug 7: SFO-ICN (UA893)
Jason8612
Aug 11: ICN-NRT-ORD (UA78, UA882)
Jason8612
Aug 14: BOS-IAD-NRT-ICN (UA285, UA803, UA79)
Deltspygt
Aug 19: ICN-NRT-IAD-BOS (UA78, UA804, UA352)
Deltspygt
Oct 1: UA433-UA893
JeredF +1
Oct 8: UA892-UA242
JeredF +1
Oct 9: BOS-SFO-ICN (UA433, UA893)
BigJC
Oct 13: ICN-NRT-ORD-BOS (UA78, UA882, UA744)
BigJC
Oct 21: BOS-SFO UA433 to SFO-ICN UA893
Sterndogg +1
flyerdude88 (SFO - ICN portion only)
Oct 23: ICN - SFO UA 892
flyerdude88
Oct 27: ICN-SFO UA892 to SFO-BOS UA286
Sterndogg +1
Nov 05: BOS-ORD UA521, ORD-NRT UA881
kokonutz, I012609, BingoSF +1
Nov 11: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-IAD UA727
kokonutz, I012609, BingoSF +1
Nov 26: BOS-SFO UA433, SFO-NRT UA837, NRT-ICN UA79
thepla
Nov 27: BOS-ORD-NRT-ICN (UA501, UA881, UA196)
BigJC+1
Nov 29: Planning 2 days in TPE, been to ICN
thepla
Dec 1: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-ORD UA698, ORD-BOS UA961
thepla
Dec 1: ICN-NRT-IAD-BOS (UA78, UA804, UA822)
BigJC+1
Dec 15: BOS-SFO UA433, SFO-ICN UA893
songzm
Dec 25: BOS-IAD UA285, IAD-NRT UA803, NRT-ICN UA79
Dinoscool3 +2
Dec 30: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-BOS UA444
songzm
Dec 31: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-BOS UA770
Dinoscool3 +2
Jan 11: BOS-SFO UA1523, Jan 12: SFO-ICN UA893
margarita girl
Jan 12: BOS-SFO UA433, SFO-ICN UA893
Zebranz
14 Jan: BOS-SFO UA433 to SFO-ICN UA893
ORDOGG
19 Jan: ICN-SFO UA892 to SFO-ORD UA698 to ORD-BOS UA961
ORDOGG
Jan 22: ICN-SFO UA892 SFO-BOS UA500
margarita girl
Feb 5: ICN-SFO UA892 SFO-BOS UA242
Zebranz
CMB-DFW EY F
FARE IS GONE
FARE RULES (thanks to SQ421)
FRTLK Fare Rules (RT)
FOWLK Fare Rules (OW)
WHEN ARE YOU FLYING?
Feel free to add any additional cities you're leaving from!
Please slot yourselves in!!!
ex-CMB
Feb
Mar
8 - Darmajaya
12 - Thaidai
22 - Deadinabsentia
Apr
21 - SQ421, penegal, jozdemir
26 - tahsir21
May
28 - Upperdeck744
29 - bonsaisai (positioning flights SIN-CMB, DFW-ORD)
Jun
12 - lelee
Jul
7 - HansGolden +6
8 - arcticbull + 1
11 - bonsaisai's friend (positioning flights: SIN-CMB, DFW-MCI)
25 - Tycosiao
30 - bonsaisai's friend (positioning flights: MCI-DFW, CMB-SIN)
Aug
17 - DC777Fan
26 - Yi Yang
31 - dcas
Sep
Oct
Nov
8 - harryhv
29 - stephem+4
Dec
6 - roastpuff and (soon) Mrs. roastpuff , JFKEZE (UL Code-share)
7 - DWFI
10 - jlisi984 + dad (CMB-AUH-DFW)
21 - bonsaisai (positioning flights SIN-CMB, DFW-ORD)
ex-AUH
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
27 - RICHKLHS
May
Jun
29 - yerffej201
Jul
9 - HansGolden +6
27 - Tycosiao
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
30 - stephem+4 (to JFK)
Dec
7 - JFKEZE, DWFI [EY161 nonstop]
9 - roastpuff and (soon) Mrs. Roastpuff
ex-DFW
Jan
Feb
Mar
14 - Thaidai
15 - zainman +1
Apr
25 - SQ421, penegal, jozdemir
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
22 - arcticbull + 1
Sep
22 - bonsaisai (positioning flights ORD-DFW, CMB-SIN)
Oct
Nov
19 - harryhv->Paris
Dec
19 - Yi Yang, jona970318
24 - DWFI (EY160 nonstop)
26 - HansGolden +6 (CDG), LwoodY2K (AUH)
The current CTA decision on the Yangon deal is only for tickets canceled by SWISS Airlines for the seven merged complaints/companions and tickets canceled by Jet Airways for one complainant and companions
- It's not about other carriers because each carrier submits different tariffs.
- If you are not one of the complainants or their companions above who were mentioned in the respective cases, you need to submit a case yourself for hearing.
- There's currently one person who is on Iberia for CTA decision, one can either wait for results or submit a complaint to CTA.
Result of the current case for LX in brief is:
- CTA found 5(F) in the tariff used to be unclear for canceling tickets on erroneously quoted fares.
- 5(F) is unjust and unreasonable and must be revised or taken down by July 9, 2013 (or SWISS can appeal by then)
- SWISS did not use its tariff correctly to cancel the tickets.
- SWISS must compensate one complainant's First Class ticket and any related expenses by July 18, 2013 provided with evidence.
- SWISS must transport other complainants (and their companions) in the original price charged with same booking class and routing by June 18, 2014.
Result of the current case for 9W in brief is:
- Tariff on file had no clauses for "erroneous fares" and was updated subsequently, which means it is not relevant to this event
- Therefore, 9W is to reinstate the tickets with a 1-year validity for transport between the same points and the same booking class.
CTA official news can be read here for general overview of the case.
Actual CTA case review can be found here for reference should you wish to file a complaint.
If you have a similar case that's with SWISS, you need to file with CTA to get a result through informal process first before it gets to formal process. The entire procedure can take up to 3 months for each and the result may not be same cause it's case-by-base and the reviewer of the case can be different.
To file an informal complaint with CTA, see here. Click through all of the pages to get to the online form for the informal complaint. Or click here.
To file a formal complaint after informal complaint has been closed, see here. Continue on to the next page to see the address or email address for the formal complaint.
The July 17th and 18th responses from LX can be found here:
Other Letters:
Feel free to add dates, flights, etc., in order to plan DOs, etc.
Aug 4: SFO-ICN (UA893)
Jason8612
Aug 5: ICN-SFO (UA892)
Jason8612
Aug 7: SFO-ICN (UA893)
Jason8612
Aug 11: ICN-NRT-ORD (UA78, UA882)
Jason8612
Aug 14: BOS-IAD-NRT-ICN (UA285, UA803, UA79)
Deltspygt
Aug 19: ICN-NRT-IAD-BOS (UA78, UA804, UA352)
Deltspygt
Oct 1: UA433-UA893
JeredF +1
Oct 8: UA892-UA242
JeredF +1
Oct 9: BOS-SFO-ICN (UA433, UA893)
BigJC
Oct 13: ICN-NRT-ORD-BOS (UA78, UA882, UA744)
BigJC
Oct 21: BOS-SFO UA433 to SFO-ICN UA893
Sterndogg +1
flyerdude88 (SFO - ICN portion only)
Oct 23: ICN - SFO UA 892
flyerdude88
Oct 27: ICN-SFO UA892 to SFO-BOS UA286
Sterndogg +1
Nov 05: BOS-ORD UA521, ORD-NRT UA881
kokonutz, I012609, BingoSF +1
Nov 11: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-IAD UA727
kokonutz, I012609, BingoSF +1
Nov 26: BOS-SFO UA433, SFO-NRT UA837, NRT-ICN UA79
thepla
Nov 27: BOS-ORD-NRT-ICN (UA501, UA881, UA196)
BigJC+1
Nov 29: Planning 2 days in TPE, been to ICN
thepla
Dec 1: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-ORD UA698, ORD-BOS UA961
thepla
Dec 1: ICN-NRT-IAD-BOS (UA78, UA804, UA822)
BigJC+1
Dec 15: BOS-SFO UA433, SFO-ICN UA893
songzm
Dec 25: BOS-IAD UA285, IAD-NRT UA803, NRT-ICN UA79
Dinoscool3 +2
Dec 30: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-BOS UA444
songzm
Dec 31: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-BOS UA770
Dinoscool3 +2
Jan 11: BOS-SFO UA1523, Jan 12: SFO-ICN UA893
margarita girl
Jan 12: BOS-SFO UA433, SFO-ICN UA893
Zebranz
14 Jan: BOS-SFO UA433 to SFO-ICN UA893
ORDOGG
19 Jan: ICN-SFO UA892 to SFO-ORD UA698 to ORD-BOS UA961
ORDOGG
Jan 22: ICN-SFO UA892 SFO-BOS UA500
margarita girl
Feb 5: ICN-SFO UA892 SFO-BOS UA242
Zebranz
CMB-DFW EY F
FARE IS GONE
FARE RULES (thanks to SQ421)
FRTLK Fare Rules (RT)
FOWLK Fare Rules (OW)
WHEN ARE YOU FLYING?
Feel free to add any additional cities you're leaving from!
Please slot yourselves in!!!
ex-CMB
Feb
Mar
8 - Darmajaya
12 - Thaidai
22 - Deadinabsentia
Apr
21 - SQ421, penegal, jozdemir
26 - tahsir21
May
28 - Upperdeck744
29 - bonsaisai (positioning flights SIN-CMB, DFW-ORD)
Jun
12 - lelee
Jul
7 - HansGolden +6
8 - arcticbull + 1
11 - bonsaisai's friend (positioning flights: SIN-CMB, DFW-MCI)
25 - Tycosiao
30 - bonsaisai's friend (positioning flights: MCI-DFW, CMB-SIN)
Aug
17 - DC777Fan
26 - Yi Yang
31 - dcas
Sep
Oct
Nov
8 - harryhv
29 - stephem+4
Dec
6 - roastpuff and (soon) Mrs. roastpuff , JFKEZE (UL Code-share)
7 - DWFI
10 - jlisi984 + dad (CMB-AUH-DFW)
21 - bonsaisai (positioning flights SIN-CMB, DFW-ORD)
ex-AUH
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
27 - RICHKLHS
May
Jun
29 - yerffej201
Jul
9 - HansGolden +6
27 - Tycosiao
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
30 - stephem+4 (to JFK)
Dec
7 - JFKEZE, DWFI [EY161 nonstop]
9 - roastpuff and (soon) Mrs. Roastpuff
ex-DFW
Jan
Feb
Mar
14 - Thaidai
15 - zainman +1
Apr
25 - SQ421, penegal, jozdemir
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
22 - arcticbull + 1
Sep
22 - bonsaisai (positioning flights ORD-DFW, CMB-SIN)
Oct
Nov
19 - harryhv->Paris
Dec
19 - Yi Yang, jona970318
24 - DWFI (EY160 nonstop)
26 - HansGolden +6 (CDG), LwoodY2K (AUH)
[PREM FARE GONE] RGN First class comes back again!!!!
#9751
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: SAT
Programs: AA EXP BA Gold, TK Gold, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, AS 100K, QR PLT, SAS Gold, IHG Spire, AMR
Posts: 5,898
Essentially, the airline questions the good faith of purchasers it regards as opportunists taking commercial advantage of what they knew to be mistake fares. It adduces the need, post purchase of the RGN Canada ticket, for arrangements to be made to get to Burma as evidence of a lack of "good faith" motives for buying its tickets.
I'm aware there exists in the US legislation set up specifically to protect any purchaser of a ticket of this kind. But similar laws do not exist in all other jurisdictions: there the existence of a contract, and the manner in which the contract is established, is of the essence.
This is where establishing good faith in the conduct of BOTH parties is important.
.
The whole intend and good faith argument is just idiotic.
#9752
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: SAT
Programs: AA EXP BA Gold, TK Gold, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, AS 100K, QR PLT, SAS Gold, IHG Spire, AMR
Posts: 5,898
Just to show you the gall LX has, here is a post by LX Lurker, asking for our advice. Yes, LX is asking for Advice from Fters.
Folks, you can't make this stuff up...
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/swiss...l#post22009788
Folks, you can't make this stuff up...
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/swiss...l#post22009788
#9753
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,401
Since when is intend or reason relevant for buying an airline ticket? Whether I buy a ticket because I have a business meeting, see my old girlfriend, want to escape the bad weather, fly for miles (mileage run) or fly to enjoy a low fare, the airline is required to honor my ticket. Even if I want to fly to Miami to buy drugs (clearly an illegal activity upon arrival), the airline can't cancel my ticket.
The whole intend and good faith argument is just idiotic.
The whole intend and good faith argument is just idiotic.
that is basic contract law, and is well established in Canada (as it is in the USA).
if you want more information you can google 'contact law' and 'equity'.
#9754
Since when is intend or reason relevant for buying an airline ticket? Whether I buy a ticket because I have a business meeting, see my old girlfriend, want to escape the bad weather, fly for miles (mileage run) or fly to enjoy a low fare, the airline is required to honor my ticket. Even if I want to fly to Miami to buy drugs (clearly an illegal activity upon arrival), the airline can't cancel my ticket.
The whole intend and good faith argument is just idiotic.
The whole intend and good faith argument is just idiotic.
By their logic, I would have a perfect 'get out' clause if I purchased a ticket for departure at, say 5am instead of 5pm. I could phone them up seven weeks later and say 'hey, if I wanted that 5am ticket I'd have to get up at 3am to get to the airport so clearly it was a mistake, you'll need to refund me in full as their was no intent on my part'.
#9755
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Programs: BA Silver, EY Gold, HH Diamond, IHG Plat
Posts: 12,206
I couldn't agree more.
By their logic, I would have a perfect 'get out' clause if I purchased a ticket for departure at, say 5am instead of 5pm. I could phone them up seven weeks later and say 'hey, if I wanted that 5am ticket I'd have to get up at 3am to get to the airport so clearly it was a mistake, you'll need to refund me in full as their was no intent on my part'.
By their logic, I would have a perfect 'get out' clause if I purchased a ticket for departure at, say 5am instead of 5pm. I could phone them up seven weeks later and say 'hey, if I wanted that 5am ticket I'd have to get up at 3am to get to the airport so clearly it was a mistake, you'll need to refund me in full as their was no intent on my part'.
#9756
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: 10^7 mm from Ȱ
Programs: Hyatt D/HHonors D/ SPG P/ Marriott P/ IHG P/ UA 1K/ AA EXP/ DL D
Posts: 1,976
it depends on what the courts want to consider. if they are going to examine the very existence of your contract with the airline, then intention and good faith may play a part.
that is basic contract law, and is well established in Canada (as it is in the USA).
if you want more information you can google 'contact law' and 'equity'.
that is basic contract law, and is well established in Canada (as it is in the USA).
if you want more information you can google 'contact law' and 'equity'.
(1) You two missed the R3 RGN boat and totally jealous of people who got the deal?
(2) You two have been paid by LX and Davis to be vocal on this forum?
(3) ......
#9757
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,401
Throughout the entire thread, both you and IAN-UK kept arguing in favor of LX and justifying LX is doing a right thing to cancel these tickets. So may I speculate your intents are:
(1) You two missed the R3 RGN boat and totally jealous of people who got the deal?
(2) You two have been paid by LX and Davis to be vocal on this forum?
(3) ......
(1) You two missed the R3 RGN boat and totally jealous of people who got the deal?
(2) You two have been paid by LX and Davis to be vocal on this forum?
(3) ......
I have never said Swiss is doing the right thing in cancelling these tickets. (and if I have that is an error on my behalf... but as far as I'm aware my language has never been that specific)
I have argued that Swiss is entitled to exercise their legal rights just like anyone else can. Passenger or company alike.
Some posters have struggled with certain concepts around legal process, contract law, administrative law and precedent.
Explaining those concepts doesn't imply Swiss is acting correctly, or going to be successful. That is for the CTA or a court to decide.
I didn't have a R3 fare. I had R2. And going way back to 2003 or something I took advantage of a Swissair promotion gaining nearly 300,000 miles for around GBP400. The way some people (me included) used that promotion back then was clearly unintended, but Swissair honoured it. So I have no issue per se in taking full advantage of offers whenever they are presented.
#9758
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, GA, LH, QR, SV, TK
Posts: 17,005
But nice to see you are keeping up the analytical rigour of your posts .
I've tried to nudge the discussion to an interpretation of the motivations of the airlines and the tracks they are taking. Sorry you see this as defending them.
Ranting can be useful in mustering support, it's cathartic, and the frothy-mouthed version is certainly fun to read; but I think standing back and trying to understand your opponent's thinking and actions is useful in any battle.
Last edited by IAN-UK; Dec 23, 2013 at 1:12 am Reason: spelling!
#9759
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, GA, LH, QR, SV, TK
Posts: 17,005
Maybe the BA argument is ever so slightly dodgy ... but good faith as a basis for contracts is pretty standard and certainly not idiotic.
And it works well for consumers as well as retailers.
A recent mistake-fare case in the UK was settled in favour of the consumer because he convinced the court that he had benefitted from bargain tickets in the past, and had no reason to believe the fare in question was anything less than normal. If I find a link to the case, I'll add it.
#9760
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AMS
Programs: KL PFL; BA Gold; A3 Silver; EY Silver; SU Silver
Posts: 2,486
#9761
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AMS
Programs: KL PFL; BA Gold; A3 Silver; EY Silver; SU Silver
Posts: 2,486
Well I may not have to, I am only interested in the final outcome and based on LX case they seem to approach this in a very specific way; but in any case CTA if approching this matter properly shall handle this under Spanish law + any applicable Canadian law (if anything).
#9762
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Left
Programs: FT
Posts: 7,285
The role of the SCc is listed on their website. And there is no restriction on matters of 'national importance'*:
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/role-eng.aspx
If a lower court has erred in applying the law, or if the SSc wishes to interpret the law on a particular subject given the circumstances of the case then it is free to grant leave to appeal if it so wishes.
(*in fact it would be correct to argue that the correct application of the law, no matter how minor, is a matter of 'national importance')
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/role-eng.aspx
If a lower court has erred in applying the law, or if the SSc wishes to interpret the law on a particular subject given the circumstances of the case then it is free to grant leave to appeal if it so wishes.
(*in fact it would be correct to argue that the correct application of the law, no matter how minor, is a matter of 'national importance')
sorry, SCC's mandate is to deal with cases of national importance, regardless of what you manage to find in the stated practice...
but hey, what the hell do i know anyway.
PM me if you are willing to buck up and put your money where your mouth is.
#9763
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Left
Programs: FT
Posts: 7,285
it depends on what the courts want to consider. if they are going to examine the very existence of your contract with the airline, then intention and good faith may play a part.
that is basic contract law, and is well established in Canada (as it is in the USA).
if you want more information you can google 'contact law' and 'equity'.
that is basic contract law, and is well established in Canada (as it is in the USA).
if you want more information you can google 'contact law' and 'equity'.
http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/25581...igations+Maybe
that said, good faith, as it exists in a limited form in certain jurisprudence, if at all, does not go to existence/formation of the contract - but to performance - which at that time, there already is a contract. that said, some courts have dismissed any such general duty of good faith....
ironically, this issue of the broader applicability of the same in Canadian case law nationally is probably something that one day, the SCC will comment on...
either way, formation case law, is well established in offer, acceptance and consideration....no magic there....sure, cases about each of the foregoing three esential elements, but my friend, good faith, at least here in canada eh, does not factor in.
i actually know the author Geoff, in fact i have his book, Canadian Contractual Interpretation Law above my computer...[evidently mr. hall is a former SCC clerk... ;-)]
#9764
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,401
your so wrong, it's comical.
http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/25581...igations+Maybe
that said, good faith, as it exists in a limited form in certain jurisprudence, if at all, does not go to existence/formation of the contract - but to performance - which at that time, there already is a contract. that said, some courts have dismissed any such general duty of good faith....
ironically, this issue of the broader applicability of the same in Canadian case law nationally is probably something that one day, the SCC will comment on...
either way, formation case law, is well established in offer, acceptance and consideration....no magic there....sure, cases about each of the foregoing three esential elements, but my friend, good faith, at least here in canada eh, does not factor in.
i actually know the author Geoff, in fact i have his book, Canadian Contractual Interpretation Law above my computer...[evidently mr. hall is a former SCC clerk... ;-)]
http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/25581...igations+Maybe
that said, good faith, as it exists in a limited form in certain jurisprudence, if at all, does not go to existence/formation of the contract - but to performance - which at that time, there already is a contract. that said, some courts have dismissed any such general duty of good faith....
ironically, this issue of the broader applicability of the same in Canadian case law nationally is probably something that one day, the SCC will comment on...
either way, formation case law, is well established in offer, acceptance and consideration....no magic there....sure, cases about each of the foregoing three esential elements, but my friend, good faith, at least here in canada eh, does not factor in.
i actually know the author Geoff, in fact i have his book, Canadian Contractual Interpretation Law above my computer...[evidently mr. hall is a former SCC clerk... ;-)]
This is a separate area of the law to that of contract formation (and indeed other contractual law elements).
In the broader context, the knowledge, behaviour or actions of the parties involved can go to the heart of the matter.
If you would like to research that a bit more, have a quick read of the maxims of equity.