Sorry, missed this.

When a passenger is involuntarily removed from the flight by the airline's employee, the contract stipulated IDB compensation as well as a refund if the passenger is not rebooked on another flight. After that process, the ticket is no longer valid and the individual no longer has a valid contract.

Thus the contract was fulfilled in every particular - even if the passenger didn't make it on the plane.

IDB does not mean the airline just "void" a contract. It means the airline exercised its rights within the contract to void the passenger's passage on its plane.

You are wrong. First, for the reasons PTravel stated regarding illusory contracts. Second, here's the actual Delta contract of carriage (pdf). It doesn't say they can refuse to transport passengers on a whim or at the discretion of airline staff. Refusal to transport must be reasonable.

You should actually read the article that you linked to. The US Air contract of carriage specifically forbids "indecent exposure or inappropriate" attire. He was denied boarding because his pants were below his butt, "indecent exposure." The airline spokesperson justified the refusal to carry based on that clause of the contract of carriage.

Just because that was the stated reason, does not mean that it was the real or entire reason. What if, for example, a jury can be convinced that far more "inappropriately" dressed passengers are allowed by the airline to fly?

If the passenger sues USAir for this, he could potentially win. I wasn't defending what the USAir employee did or stating that it was justified. I was commenting on Plato's assertion that the incident demonstrated that passengers could be denied boarding on an airline employee's whim and that the contract of carriage allows airlines to do whatever they want. The airline is (so far) defending this as pursuant to a specific clause in the contract of carriage.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were. I quoted that part of your post merely to show the particular point I was addressing.

You are wrong.

Please point out for us where the CoC states such a requirement to be "reasonable".You should read what PTravel is claiming.

The theory of "illusory consideration" is that if the passenger didn't read the contract and didn't understand it, then he can't be bound by it. If that was actually true instead of a legal fiction, then US Air couldn't enforce the dress code at all.

If you concede that US Air had the legal right via the condition of carriage to deny boarding to that person, then the whole idea of "illusory consideration" is already thrown out the window because you've bound the passenger to the contract.

Wearing a t-shirt is not "acting".

I was referring to the airline employee.

Tell that to Megan Fox.

One more time: Airlines cannot refuse passage "on a whim," as you claimed. This is Contracts 101. Don't believe me if you want, I'm not getting into an argument with you about it.

See, you didn't look up the meaning of illusory consideration as I suggested. You're completely wrong about what it is.

Oh, you're trying to claim this interpretation?

"a promise in the contract which turns out not to be a promise at all"

That is not true at all. The CoC states clearly that the passenger will either be transported or, if involuntarily denied boarding, be given a full refund plus IDB compensation.

It would be quite an amusing claim to suggest that the "promise" was solely limited to transportation and provided no option for denying carriage.

And "discretion" will have implied into "commercially reasonable."

I'm not "trying to claim" anything. It is illusory consideration when the consideration for the contract may be withheld for no reason. Contracts must be supported by consideration, usually stated as, "a promise for a promise." If the promissor can withhold performance on a whim, there is no consideration.

As I said, this is Contracts 101. I have no idea why you think this is something you can dispute.

And if the reason for the IDB is a whim, THAT is illusory consideration.

It's quite amusing to see a non-lawyer try, and fail, to understand something that every law student learns in the first day of Contracts class.

I am quite aware of the grounds under which the Jarrar suit was brought and in no way was I likening them to this situation. Rather, I was simply responding posts about that particular incident including your gratuitous post:

If you were at all familiar with the facts of that case, you'd know that he did fly on the flight he had ticketed-- JetBlue purchased a shirt from a gift shop for him to wear on the flight so his 'offensive' message was not shown. Furthermore, he was never 'on' the flight as this all took place in the gate area before he boarded.

Considering US's CoC includes a section about dress, that doesn't seem like a whim at all.

It doesn't need to say it. Carrying out the contract in good faith is assumed in any contract's terms. That is basic contract law.

But on Pg. 11 the contract actually does say it. Probably because Delta wants the contract to actually be valid. The paragraph on "passenger's conduct or condition" states that Delta may refuse to transport when "reasonably necessary" for comfort or safety and then provides a list of reasons why it might be "reasonably necessary."

:confused: That is not what illusory consideration means.