murphyUA

They took action and canceled the tickets. Now we know their true intent.

Reading this thread (especially posts from "lawyers") has been very entertaining. Keep it up, guys!^

colpuck

I am pretty sure people traveled on these tickets, plus they waited 4 days before canceling mine. You are right the intent is clear "sellers remorse;" it is a shame that is not a defense to breach of contract.

elitetraveler

This is so spot on ^

I would love to see if some of the folks here made a "mistake" when writing out their mortgage or rent check for $200,000 instead of $2,000. And the landlord would just say, sorry pound salt. Pay closer attention next time.

The fact UA cut off the deal within hours shows as soon as they realized there was a mistake, they aimed to correct it. It actually shows they were on the ball - not just sitting back and saying, hey, let these folks just keep booking and we'll take care of it later.

Some folks got the deal of a century. The doors on the back the Brink's truck opened accidentally and they walked away with some money before anyone noticed. The folks who were still holding the money that fell out of the truck when the driver came around are just playing a losing game of "finders keepers" IMO.

Would it be nice if the airlines went back to the days of waivers and favors? Sure, but totally unrelated to the doors to the Brink's truck opening up accidentally.

Shanye2233

I did receive the email as well to the email address I used to complain to dot . In the email it keeps talking about the correct published fare was shown thru the process . This is un true I booked from SYD to lax to hkg SYD not once did it give me another fare .

Maybe this is the response from united after dot has told them
To respond .

colpuck

Cute analogy, but false.

With rent/mortgage payments you have already agreed on a periodic payment. There is already a contract in place. In case you haven't been following the thread so far we're debating the actual formation of the contract or the ability of one of the parties to rescind the contract.

In your analogy in the event of the overpayment the other party has to offer you option of applying it to next months rent or returning the difference unless there are contractual terms that say different.

Next.

elitetraveler

Take a look at Blumie's post again. A rare time I've agreed with him, however, it is going to be impossible to prove UA was trying to deceive anyone - since they didn't. They made a mistake. Unlikely the DOT or any judge is going to hold them liable.

I think it's fine that the folks who had their tickets taken back try to fight it. If the customer-vendor relationship was with your local butcher store, you would never be allowed back in it. But UA is a big, huge company and as much as they may talk loyalty to customers they are a big huge company. This is a good lesson also for the airlines and other companies that the airline 'loyalty' programs are really nothing about loyalty whether they are effective marketing programs or not.

SFO777

You mean just like the DOT didn't hold Korean liable?

colpuck

Uh no. Judges hold people accountable for their mistakes all the time. "I didn't mean to do it" generally doesn't mean anything to a judge.

EsquireFlyer

That's not what elitetraveler was saying... the statement was not that judges never hold people accountable for their mistakes, but that in these circumstances, a judge would not enforce the contract against UA, because UA made a mistake (and the customer knew or should have known of UA's mistake, which makes it different from ordinary seller's remorse).

And, wow, this thread turned really vicious really fast.

But I agree with everyone who said that under these circumstances, no enforceable contract was formed, because the price charged was so low that the buyer either knew or should have known that it was a mistake. That's basic contract law. (And, realistically, the buyers who found out about this from FlyerTalk, rather than stumbling into it themselves, most likely had actual knowledge of the mistake, making constructive knowledge completely unnecessary.)

That being said, the DOT, as a government agency, can penalize UA for plenty of things that a consumer individually would not be able to sue UA for in civil court. This would be one situation where the DOT had authority to take action. But since it has expressly declined to do so, the customer seeking to take advantage of the mistake fare is basically out of luck.

SWCPHX

Really, if you looked up award ticket mileage requirements on the United website it said 4?

Shanye2233

Why would I look it up when it's printed clearly in front of my face ? Do you go to a restaurant be presented with a menu and then go online and have a look at the menu ?

flyer31

:

colpuck

And you would be wrong on both counts.

While yes mistake-in-fact does allow the seller to rescind the contract, there one has to be a mistake. Here both parties knew and affirmed a lower price. The lower price was quoted multiple times, through multiple sources, over multiple days. It would be one thing to say hey there was a bug, but UA sold so many tickets and did so over the phone as well. This makes the "mistake" argument look silly at best But even if that were a mistake it still doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because the seller in this case has expressly affirmed some of the contract by honoring them. So even if there was a mistake, by honoring some UA has decided that they are in fact valid contracts. Even where UA canceled the tickets, they did so only after stating that they were honoring some, so in essence UA is saying some are valid and some are not. No judge will uphold that.

Now lets look at the DOT argument. You could be possibly right here. However, the DOT has not acted on this issue yet so I am not sure where you got the "expressly approved" bit from. I was expecting something back from the DOT at the end of last week, maybe it is taking longer. Who knows, I haven't heard from my source yet.

sbrower

Col - your opinion is as welcome as mine. But making up legal arguments, that are not true, doesn't help. There is no sellers remorse here - no one, not even you, believes that UAL at the appropriate levels intended to sell these tickets at these prices. The fact that front line agents with no authority confirmed that they saw this in their computer doesn't make it an action of UAL.

Now, can you say that morally they should stick to it? Yes, you can.

Can you say that you feel that UAL has earned enough this year and should give you some of that money? Yes, you can.

Can you say that the DOT regulations should be enforced, as written, even though the DOT knows they will look like idiots? Yes, you can.

But you can't just make up legal arguments and pretend like they are true, without admitting they are how you wished the law works, but not how the law really works.

ldpeters

So I've been to law school and have had some experience with civil litigation and contract disputes. Regardless of whether or not United's argument is strong or weak, I haven't seen a lot on what you would actually have to do in order to get anything out of them. How will a lawsuit (be likely to) play out? This is what I explore below.

I'm going to preface this by saying that I'm trying to be impartial here, without actually passing judgment on anyone in this forum, on either side of the debate, or on United itself for failing to honor the deal.

If you wanted to recover, you'd have to proceed individually. If you assume that United's best counterargument is unilateral mistake, they will push (and I think successfully) against class action. If United can't get the claim dismissed, they'll argue mistake as a defense. In this case -- even for unilateral mistake -- the knowledge of the mistake in the mind of any individual purchaser is relevant, those individual states must be examined on a case-by-case basis (not as a class). As in most lawsuits, it's in United's best interest to do this because it will require individual litigants.

So to recover as an individual, and not as part of a class, you'll have to hire your own lawyer and pay for expenses during trial. You're going to have to file (or United will quickly have the case moved) to Harris County, TX -- the venue where you agreed to bring all claims when you used United's web site. Choice-of-forum clauses are almost universally upheld by courts, so this is likely a win for United. Expenses alone, not including attorneys fees, during the trial could easily run to the tens of thousands of dollars. You will need to foot the bill for these, as well as the attorney's fees, unless you can find an attorney who will take this on contingency -- which is possible, but highly unlikely (this is neither a class-action nor a personal injury suit with the potential for many tens of thousands of dollars to be taken on contingency). I speak from the experience of lawyers I know well: the outlay for civil litigation in Texas against a major corporation can run upwards of $100,000 -- and even if you recover it when you win, that's an awful lot to pay out of pocket and wait for the outcome.

Next you're going to have the hurdle of depositions. You're going to be expected to say, under oath, that you had no idea that the 4-mile fare was or could be a mistake on United's part, that you believed it was a real, bona fide sale on United's part. Regardless of how you feel about perjury, United will then try to subpoena and depose pretty much every one of your close friends, relatives, and work mates. They will ask whether you ever spoke about this to them, and whether you ever mentioned that you thought it was a mistake on United's part. Remember that we are not talking about mutual mistake -- and this is where the law is confusing for the layperson -- but rather unilaterial mistake on United's part. Here, United's argument will be that whether or not *you* think it is a mistake is relevant not because you have also made a mistake (that would be mutual mistake), but because your knowledge that it is a mistake on United's part compels the court to void the contract. There's some precedent either way, so United is unlikely to win on summary judgment, but this is what they will argue and thus this is what they will aim to get in depositions. Note that your friends, family, loved ones, girlfriend, co-workers, children, etc. (though not your spouse!) who may have heard you brag about this are unlikely to be compensated for the time they have to miss work to attend the deposition.

Then United is going to subpoena all of your e-mail and social networking accounts. They will comb your activity on FlyerTalk, Facebook, and your e-mail to look for clues of you bragging about how you scored this amazing deal that is too good to be true! Or that you really got in on a great IT error at United! (etc. etc.)

If the depositions on this aren't enough for summary judgment, or for your contingency-fee lawyer to quickly lose interest, you're now going to go to trial. At trial, all of the material from the depositions will find its way into the jury's eyes and/or ears. You're now left with 12 crazy people trying to decide whether or not United made a unilateral mistake. This could go any which fracking way, pardon my language -- but it's a gamble. United has a good argument. YOU have a good argument. 12 not-so-cool heads will prevail.

Look, some of this reasoning could obviously go either way -- it's the role of a good lawyer to be able to argue both sides -- but this is my view of what is likely, and I've tried on balance to pick the pieces that are less controversial.

For those who say that United isn't interested in fighting this, and will just fold -- I say, there you're probably being overly optimistic. I've seen United fight much, much lesser things involving much, much lower amounts of revenue all the way to trial. PMUA had a legal department that fought hard, and fought dirty. Who knows if COdbUA has a similar strategy, but they might.

So for those threatening a lawsuit, you could fight this, and you could win -- but would it be worth it? You're putting things in the hands of a capricious jury, at best. If you win, or get a settlement, you get a free ticket to Hong Kong (or beyond). If you lose, you could possibly end up out of pocket tens of thousands of dollars in expenses and attorneys fees. To some, this is a worthwhile gambit. To others, it may be less so. For those of you who are in the former category, I encourage you to put your money where your mouth is. In this final suggestion, I may admit that I am biased -- I want to watch closely, and I'm genuinely curious as to how this ends.

(also, and this may be the kicker for a bunch of FTers -- there's nothing to prevent them from confiscating your miles banning you for MP. For life. Just in retaliation for filing the lawsuit. They're allowed to do that. And they have)