[FARE GONE] Wickedly Low Biz Class Fare from YYZ to LCA (Cyprus) on AZ (Alitalia)
Apr 6, 2006, 9:29 pm
#2281
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: How many more miles to 2MM? - TOO Many
Posts: 274
Originally Posted by GUWonder
A few of my ticketed Travelocity itineraries has disappeared after showing up as "cancelled" when I clicked on it.
Bizarre.
Bizarre.
Same here, had a ticket number and everything. Checked yesterday and the itin was still in place, this AM also still in place; but this afternoon - cancelled, then 15 mins later GONE (not even the cancellation notice).
Oh well,.....
RxTravel
Apr 6, 2006, 9:30 pm
#2282
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Boston
Programs: Hotels: Golden Airlines: B6 Mosiac
Posts: 313
[QUOTE=PHLDividends]
Where do you people come up with these outlandish statements? See following:
MISTAKE AS TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT
Where one party is mistaken as to the nature of the contract and the other party is aware of the mistake, or the circumstances are such that he may be taken to be aware of it, the contract is void.
For the mistake to be operative, the mistake by one party must be as to the terms of the contract itself. See:
Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566
The precedent was set by Hartog v Colin and Shields [1939]3 All ER 566 in which there was a pricing error where the seller thought he was pricing per pound, but the cost was actually calculated per item. The Court held that the purchaser could not reasonably have supposed that the offer expressed the real intention of the person making it, and must have been aware it was a mistake. The purchaser therefore did not, by his acceptance of the offer, make a binding contract with the seller. This would give an online retailer a defence if the price of a product was so ludicrously low that the intention to create legal relations could not be formed.
So get off your high horse....
Originally Posted by myn4
If not, then Orbitz and Alitalia should honor the reserved flights. I'm about ready to let them come to small claims court and explain how they get out of this contract.
MISTAKE AS TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT
Where one party is mistaken as to the nature of the contract and the other party is aware of the mistake, or the circumstances are such that he may be taken to be aware of it, the contract is void.
For the mistake to be operative, the mistake by one party must be as to the terms of the contract itself. See:
Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566
The precedent was set by Hartog v Colin and Shields [1939]3 All ER 566 in which there was a pricing error where the seller thought he was pricing per pound, but the cost was actually calculated per item. The Court held that the purchaser could not reasonably have supposed that the offer expressed the real intention of the person making it, and must have been aware it was a mistake. The purchaser therefore did not, by his acceptance of the offer, make a binding contract with the seller. This would give an online retailer a defence if the price of a product was so ludicrously low that the intention to create legal relations could not be formed.
So get off your high horse....
Apr 6, 2006, 9:31 pm
#2283
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Southern California (LAX, LGB, SNA)
Programs: AA EXP, MR Gold
Posts: 551
Originally Posted by UCSBCHRIS2002
The only thing that Im scared of is that earlier posts talked about how when they looked up their tracking number it showed "return to sender" which would be no good for people who got the 2-3 day shipping 
I just wrote an email to CT to obtain the UPS tracking number. I received the UPS numbers, and then 24 minutes later received the cancellation message, attached to the UPS numbers sent.
Checked UPS at that time... and tracking had the request for return to sender. Awe. But, it was after the truck left for delivery. Check again, at work. Delivered, 9:03a. Yea. Get home, no package! BOO! Recheck UPS tracking info, they said "refused" over 5 hours later at 2:20p PT. CRAP! Wish I could have been home.
Waiting further info from the masses. Again, no calls to CT or AZ. Just an email requesting tracking number.
Apr 6, 2006, 9:35 pm
#2284
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFO
Programs: SW A-List, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Elite, Hilton Gold
Posts: 380
Originally Posted by TelevisionTdTina
I just wrote an email to CT to obtain the UPS tracking number. I received the UPS numbers, and then 24 minutes later received the cancellation message, attached to the UPS numbers sent.
Checked UPS at that time... and tracking had the request for return to sender. Awe. But, it was after the truck left for delivery. Check again, at work. Delivered, 9:03a. Yea. Get home, no package! BOO! Recheck UPS tracking info, they said "refused" over 5 hours later at 2:20p PT. CRAP! Wish I could have been home.
Waiting further info from the masses. Again, no calls to CT or AZ. Just an email requesting tracking number.
Checked UPS at that time... and tracking had the request for return to sender. Awe. But, it was after the truck left for delivery. Check again, at work. Delivered, 9:03a. Yea. Get home, no package! BOO! Recheck UPS tracking info, they said "refused" over 5 hours later at 2:20p PT. CRAP! Wish I could have been home.
Waiting further info from the masses. Again, no calls to CT or AZ. Just an email requesting tracking number.
Apr 6, 2006, 9:35 pm
#2285
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
[QUOTE=HepperSchepp]
Where do you people come up with these outlandish statements? See following:
MISTAKE AS TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT
Where one party is mistaken as to the nature of the contract and the other party is aware of the mistake, or the circumstances are such that he may be taken to be aware of it, the contract is void.
For the mistake to be operative, the mistake by one party must be as to the terms of the contract itself. See:
Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566
The precedent was set by Hartog v Colin and Shields [1939]3 All ER 566 in which there was a pricing error where the seller thought he was pricing per pound, but the cost was actually calculated per item. The Court held that the purchaser could not reasonably have supposed that the offer expressed the real intention of the person making it, and must have been aware it was a mistake. The purchaser therefore did not, by his acceptance of the offer, make a binding contract with the seller. This would give an online retailer a defence if the price of a product was so ludicrously low that the intention to create legal relations could not be formed.
So get off your high horse....
We've gone through this before in so many deals.
Alitalia is accepting ticketed itineraries issued via Orbitz. Is Alitalia making a mistake in doing so? That's another issue ..... but this consumer thinks Alitalia is doing right by Orbitz's customers who were ticketed.
Originally Posted by PHLDividends
Where do you people come up with these outlandish statements? See following:
MISTAKE AS TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT
Where one party is mistaken as to the nature of the contract and the other party is aware of the mistake, or the circumstances are such that he may be taken to be aware of it, the contract is void.
For the mistake to be operative, the mistake by one party must be as to the terms of the contract itself. See:
Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566
The precedent was set by Hartog v Colin and Shields [1939]3 All ER 566 in which there was a pricing error where the seller thought he was pricing per pound, but the cost was actually calculated per item. The Court held that the purchaser could not reasonably have supposed that the offer expressed the real intention of the person making it, and must have been aware it was a mistake. The purchaser therefore did not, by his acceptance of the offer, make a binding contract with the seller. This would give an online retailer a defence if the price of a product was so ludicrously low that the intention to create legal relations could not be formed.
So get off your high horse....
Alitalia is accepting ticketed itineraries issued via Orbitz. Is Alitalia making a mistake in doing so? That's another issue ..... but this consumer thinks Alitalia is doing right by Orbitz's customers who were ticketed.
Apr 6, 2006, 9:40 pm
#2286
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Silver IHG Platinum
Posts: 3,733
I just hope they don't go after the OP and advise that he had extraordinary access to information that was not available to the public at large and used such information to exploit the vendor.
Apr 6, 2006, 9:42 pm
#2287
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by AvalancheZ71
I just hope they don't go after the OP and advise that he had extraordinary access to information that was not available to the public at large and used such information to exploit the vendor.
Apr 6, 2006, 9:45 pm
#2289
Join Date: Apr 2006
Programs: Airmiles
Posts: 4
[QUOTE=HepperSchepp]
Where do you people come up with these outlandish statements? See following:
MISTAKE AS TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT
Where one party is mistaken as to the nature of the contract and the other party is aware of the mistake, or the circumstances are such that he may be taken to be aware of it, the contract is void.
For the mistake to be operative, the mistake by one party must be as to the terms of the contract itself. See:
Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566
The precedent was set by Hartog v Colin and Shields [1939]3 All ER 566 in which there was a pricing error where the seller thought he was pricing per pound, but the cost was actually calculated per item. The Court held that the purchaser could not reasonably have supposed that the offer expressed the real intention of the person making it, and must have been aware it was a mistake. The purchaser therefore did not, by his acceptance of the offer, make a binding contract with the seller. This would give an online retailer a defence if the price of a product was so ludicrously low that the intention to create legal relations could not be formed.
So get off your high horse....
You are quite right my law student (I am assuming) friend. The one thing you forget is that if 500 small claims cases are started in who knows hom many jurisdictions around the world, it would cost a hell of a lot more for AZ to hire lawyers to defend them (even if it's just having a lawyer show up to court to have the case dimissed) than what the "cost" to AZ (as opposed to the face value) of the tickets may be.
Just my 2 cents.
Originally Posted by PHLDividends
Where do you people come up with these outlandish statements? See following:
MISTAKE AS TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT
Where one party is mistaken as to the nature of the contract and the other party is aware of the mistake, or the circumstances are such that he may be taken to be aware of it, the contract is void.
For the mistake to be operative, the mistake by one party must be as to the terms of the contract itself. See:
Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566
The precedent was set by Hartog v Colin and Shields [1939]3 All ER 566 in which there was a pricing error where the seller thought he was pricing per pound, but the cost was actually calculated per item. The Court held that the purchaser could not reasonably have supposed that the offer expressed the real intention of the person making it, and must have been aware it was a mistake. The purchaser therefore did not, by his acceptance of the offer, make a binding contract with the seller. This would give an online retailer a defence if the price of a product was so ludicrously low that the intention to create legal relations could not be formed.
So get off your high horse....
You are quite right my law student (I am assuming) friend. The one thing you forget is that if 500 small claims cases are started in who knows hom many jurisdictions around the world, it would cost a hell of a lot more for AZ to hire lawyers to defend them (even if it's just having a lawyer show up to court to have the case dimissed) than what the "cost" to AZ (as opposed to the face value) of the tickets may be.
Just my 2 cents.
Apr 6, 2006, 9:47 pm
#2290
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 211
[QUOTE=azaidi001]
You are quite right my law student (I am assuming) friend. The one thing you forget is that if 500 small claims cases are started in who knows hom many jurisdictions around the world, it would cost a hell of a lot more for AZ to hire lawyers to defend them (even if it's just having a lawyer show up to court to have the case dimissed) than what the "cost" to AZ (as opposed to the face value) of the tickets may be.
Just my 2 cents.
MrZhu is a member of a legal insurance plan that would let him file a case for free. I suppose you could say. What the hey, MrZhu has nothing to lose.
Originally Posted by HepperSchepp
You are quite right my law student (I am assuming) friend. The one thing you forget is that if 500 small claims cases are started in who knows hom many jurisdictions around the world, it would cost a hell of a lot more for AZ to hire lawyers to defend them (even if it's just having a lawyer show up to court to have the case dimissed) than what the "cost" to AZ (as opposed to the face value) of the tickets may be.
Just my 2 cents.
Apr 6, 2006, 9:48 pm
#2291
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by AvalancheZ71
True, however, it does not take much to go after one and drain one's resources in the process even if they may be recouped.
Apr 6, 2006, 9:48 pm
#2292
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Silver IHG Platinum
Posts: 3,733
[QUOTE=azaidi001]
You are quite right my law student (I am assuming) friend. The one thing you forget is that if 500 small claims cases are started in who knows hom many jurisdictions around the world, it would cost a hell of a lot more for AZ to hire lawyers to defend them (even if it's just having a lawyer show up to court to have the case dimissed) than what the "cost" to AZ (as opposed to the face value) of the tickets may be.
Just my 2 cents.
Not to mention that the attorneys would be sitting up front and taking away additional revenue seats they could have just let go for these fares anyway. Who knows, maybe someone will purchase items from the AZ company store and recoup some lost revenue. 
Originally Posted by HepperSchepp
You are quite right my law student (I am assuming) friend. The one thing you forget is that if 500 small claims cases are started in who knows hom many jurisdictions around the world, it would cost a hell of a lot more for AZ to hire lawyers to defend them (even if it's just having a lawyer show up to court to have the case dimissed) than what the "cost" to AZ (as opposed to the face value) of the tickets may be.
Just my 2 cents.
Apr 6, 2006, 9:49 pm
#2293
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: LAX-TPE-LAX
Programs: No more status...just doing my best in burning my points/miles.
Posts: 2,003
Originally Posted by Mateo4321
Maybe they'll do something a-la Air Canada and honor only one of the reservations, vs. multiple ones.
Apr 6, 2006, 9:50 pm
#2294
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: LAX-TPE-LAX
Programs: No more status...just doing my best in burning my points/miles.
Posts: 2,003
Originally Posted by Jaimito Cartero
This is why I pointed out that it was worth it to pay the extra $5 to Cheaptickets to get next day delivery. In the long run, I don't know that it will help, but they certainly can't say it's a mistake, as I have paper tickets...
Apr 6, 2006, 9:51 pm
#2295
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by party_boy
Since then they've lost over 40k of paid revenue from myself and my colleages. Many changed their flights to other carriers when reasonable.
