igorjrr

Maybe I used the wrong word, sorry. I meant "offered" (mistake or not). I even bought a ticket. However it was through a travel agency and they do not have to offer a refund in case of cancellation, only a voucher.

ne0ven0m

FWIW, I have 2 pending charges now (bought via Priceline). The original charge from TAP, and a refund in the same amount 2 days later. Guess I'll see if both stick around next week. If so, no harm no foul.

Antarius

They also advertised it.

As much as that other poster chooses to stick their fingers in their ears and yell, USA to EU does count within the advertised medium or longhaul starting at 299.

Repooc17

I find it interesting TP's clear fare offer between North America and Europe at 1,499 USD (found in the corresponding promotional link) is being ignored. The 299 EUR is just the starting price covering its medium and long haul flights. Also, TP flies on routes other than between North America and Europe as part of its longhaul network.

Good luck with your suit.

jfkeze

TAP in August 2020 sold fares from Boston to Lisbon from $627

So they have a history of affordable Business Class tickets across the Atlantic...

Again, what I posted is valid for 0.01% of Flyertalkers, Small Claims to enforce the contract as entered by both parties. It's up to the Courts in my opinion, together with DOT to make the call...

work2fly

This is less than €299 each, so I'm missing the connection between your purchase and the advertisement.

work2fly

Why the 'let's see'? Did you knowingly purchase something you knew to be an error?

I'm cool with playing the game, but let's at least be intellectually honest about it.

Prudence would suggest not belaboring arguments with others, but YMMV.

Antarius

Let's see because their IT is ........, so let's see if it actually tickets. It took a while to even get their website to load.

Regardless, even if I suspect it to be a mistake, why is this relevant? They sold a fare they advertised and I, happy with the good fare, was hopeful for my good fortune.​​​​​

Fundamentally, don't advertise and sell what you can't produce. That's not on the buyer. Ever.

IAN-UK

The relevance lies in the importance given under law to "clean hands" and contracts. If you suspected it was a mistake then to maintain squeaky clean hands you could have enquired further. If a court determines that you knew, or should have known, then your case is holed.

And once you can see beyond disappointment, frustration and anger, you might grudgingly agree that, say, a Chicago to Vienna round-trip ticket, in business-class, for $230 is something really quite extraordinary.

Maybe you haven't seen the sneaky use of "from" in advertising before. My in-box gets bombarded with airline "from" offers, none ever seen to apply to where I want to go, and a good part of them turn out to be one-way tickets .

danger

I try not to get involved in the inevitable legal discussion that takes place following these discount fare sales, but having previously been very closely involved in suing two of the world's most recognised airlines for so-called mistake fares, I feel I have some level of authority to speak (or at least some value to add). I'm not here to argue in anyway; I'm confident that given my experience I have enough knowledge to bring an action if I wanted to (although I did not purchase one of these discount fares).

I believe there is a strong argument to be made that simply refunding the money paid is not making a person whole.In the landmark 1848 case of Robinson v Harman ((1848) 1 Ex Rep 850, 154 ER 363), Barron Parke introduced the fundamental basis on which compensatory damages for breach of contract are formulated. He said, at 850:

"The rule of the common law is, that where a party sustains loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed [my emphasis]."

The principle was supported in Chaplin v. Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786 [Court of Appeal] where Lord Moulton noted, at 794:

"… the aim of the law is to ensure that a person whose contract has been broken shall be placed as near as possible in the same position as if it had [emphasis added]."

To my mind, making someone whole would be providing a replacement airfare (obviously not in addition to the refund).

I don't believe this is correct.

The English doctrine of mistake in contract requires three elements to be proven with. First, a mistake must have been made and it's generally not enough to simply say 'I made a mistake' to prove this element. Second, the other party knew or ought to have know about the so-called mistake. Three, the non-mistaken party deliberately set about preventing the other party from learning of the mistake.

The onus for all three element is on the party who is alleging the mistake.

I think it would be useful for a thread to be established purely for discussing the legalities of an airline unilaterally cancelling a ticket due to an alleged mistake.

(Why does the indent feature not work?)

IAN-UK

We are not exactly strangers to codfication, though it's true that the chap tasked with codification of contract law died without his efforts (published last century) entering practice. But case law, established through a case involving a perfidious Belgian, blameless Brits and a box of rabbit skins, makes it clear that taking advantage of a mistake can invalidate a contract.

I believe a "meeting of minds" also figures generally in US contract law. Although nothing is at all certain, the concept of clean pairs of hands would present a significant hurdle in this case - as it always does with mistake fares.

I have no idea how US courts have reacted to DOT withdrawal from implementing rules which had enforced, among other things, the rights of those purchasing mistake fares. My understanding is that this extraordinary move stemmed from Departmental tiredness and frustration at having to apply sensible but outdated consumer-protection protocol to further the action of opportunists taking advantage of mistakes in fares. The extraordinariness was that DOT intended to maintain the rule, but not act on it. Presumably this was so it can be wheeled out if a pressing consumer-interest issue emerges.

Unless there has been a subsequent change, it means that support from DOT in this case is unlikely. And the question is how deeply this approach has permeated the approach of courts to these issues.


So while I'd be interested to see how an appeal to justice works out, I am uncomfortable to see flames of resentment being fanned among those disappointed at this fare not being honoured. Legal action may be cathartic, but it comes at a cost.

Global321

Adding to danger's points...

I believe Contra proferentem would come into play here. (In short, ambiguity in a contract goes to the benefit of the person that did not write it.)

Terms like short-haul / medium-haul / long-haul are certainly open to interpretation, as given by the debate here over "medium-haul" and "long-haul".

If one saw an ad for "medium-haul" and "long-haul" business class starting at 299 and bought at, let's say 499, one could make the argument that they knew the flight distance was longer than the shortest 'long-haul' and therefore paid more than the 299. They could say they reasonably assumed this fare was what the contract maker (TAP) intended. (Buying at under 299 would be more problematic in this example.)

It would be an interesting, and I believe powerful, argument to a judge.

johnep1

I booked using my CSR via Priceline. The charge never left "pending" and now isn't showing up at all. And when I go to manage my reservation, with either Priceline or TAP, the flights don't show up. Given I've received zero communication from either Priceline or TAP on this, I am assuming it's as if I never booked (e.g., no current reservation and no permanent payment made).

I'm ok with the above. As described by others, TAP seems to be dreadful to deal with in case of issues, so getting out of this with no money out of pocket seems a bit like a win.

I've been lucky enough to get in on at least a dozen awesome, and honored, mistake deals before (and yes, I believe we all know these are mistakes). Now, I do believe that TAP should honor these. After all, it's usually a lack of proper investment in sufficient technology, processes, or training that leads to these things, so skimping on safeguards and then being shocked when something bad happens seems dishonest. But I'll leave that fight to those who truly want to take it up. And I'll be happy to be a free rider in case there ends up being an available outcome better than my current position (e.g., like when our Alitalia tickets went from not being honored to pretty much fully flexible). But I'm ok with my current position and will move on to the next deal.

WingedWorldExplorer

Glad someone with experience chimes in.

Posting # 284 above describes several of the points you are making. [QUOTE]That is not what Make Whole is. The standard for this kind of Damages is: Status Quo Ante i.e what amount of $$$ will, if paid, bring the Plaintiff in exactly the same position as he was in before and if not for the Breach by the other Party ( i.e in possession of a valid ticket). No need to have actually purchased anything just what it reasonably would cost to Replace what was lost.[QUOTE]

I have had cases against a.1. The largest airline in the world, b. 3 of the larger carriers in Asia and c. the largest OTA in the world. In all cases the Court's Judgment or the negotiated settlement was based on REPLACEMENT COST, All of these Defendants had previously refunded the money and never even argued that reimbursement = cure. Also the money refunded was never subtracted from final Judgment or Settlement. As someone pointed out above, but probably for another rhetorical reason, the E-mail Notification of Cancellation is deliberately misleading at worst and ambiguous at best. Nowhere does the word price or fare appear.

There are many examples of what could be considered "System Error"
a. Issuing ticket for destination(s) not served or with incorrect or non-existent flight numbers. Flight TP 2232 vs TP 2322.
b. Issuing tickets for non-existing flight including flights that had already been cancelled.
c. Misplacing a comma $ 2.45 vs $ 245.
d. Computer Charging in wrong currency 245 Yen vs 245 US$.
e. Computer submitting wrong data to credit card company thereby causing passenger to pay different price than the one passenger accepted.

Via an Interrogatory and / or cross examination at Trial ( if permitted), I am confident I can expose this falsehood especially considering that any ambiguity shall be interpreted to the benefit of the passenger.

Just as the case against one of the airlines, I used the airline's own Terms and Conditions as evidence against them. The T&C explicitly stated that the action(s) I had taken were indeed permitted and by their own choice of words even encouraged.@ DANGER: Maybe our cases over lapped.

"Clean Hands" concept, as you say, is completely inapplicable.
"Meeting of the Minds" was argued by Defendants but dismissed by Judge. Contract of Adhesion. Generally, there must be person to person contact, either Face-to-Face, writing or telephonic.

I had specific post-vaccination vacation plans in Europe for myself and my immediate family and have hotel bookings in the same time period and locations.

IAN-UK

Another, tenable, interpretation might, in these cases, refer to ancillary non-refundable purchases made in the expectation of making the trip - hotel rooms, hire cars and such.

referring to your third point, I'm not sure how the non-mistaken party might, in these cases, cover up the mistake made by the airline - unless by failing to alert the airline to the mistake by making contact to verify the legitimate nature of the fare.

It works, but:

• it can be clunky
• it might might not perform properly, if at all, on phones