UAs Official Response to HKG Ticketing/IT Error: Redeem @ Correct Amount or Redeposit
Aug 1, 2012, 1:40 am
#3211
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,447
For all you "soon to be lawyers" I thought I would post some real information about "mistake." Here is the official jury instruction for use in a California court. What appears between brackets is where I substituted actual names for blanks in the instruction:
[United] claims that there was no contract because [it] was mistaken about [the final price being charged for certain first class tickets]. To succeed, [United] must prove all of the following:
1. That [United] was mistaken about [the price, in FF miles, which its computer said should be charged for the tickets];
2. That [Frequent Flyer ticket holder] knew [United] was mistaken and used that mistake to take advantage of [it];
3. That [United]’s mistake was not caused by [its] excessive carelessness; and
4. That [United] would not have agreed to enter into the contract if [it] had known about the mistake.
If you decide that [United] has proved all of the above, then no contract was created.
You can argue "excessive carelessness." You can argue "knew United was mistaken and used that mistake to take advantage of it." But you can't argue "once the computer sold me the ticket they were obligated."
[United] claims that there was no contract because [it] was mistaken about [the final price being charged for certain first class tickets]. To succeed, [United] must prove all of the following:
1. That [United] was mistaken about [the price, in FF miles, which its computer said should be charged for the tickets];
2. That [Frequent Flyer ticket holder] knew [United] was mistaken and used that mistake to take advantage of [it];
3. That [United]’s mistake was not caused by [its] excessive carelessness; and
4. That [United] would not have agreed to enter into the contract if [it] had known about the mistake.
If you decide that [United] has proved all of the above, then no contract was created.
You can argue "excessive carelessness." You can argue "knew United was mistaken and used that mistake to take advantage of it." But you can't argue "once the computer sold me the ticket they were obligated."
If you want real jury instructions - here they are:
http://www.justia.com/trials-litigat...i/300/325.html
Aug 1, 2012, 1:48 am
#3212
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
Seriously, where did you make up this stuff? United would not contest there was a contract. They will contend they have the ability to cancel the contract based on contract of carriage. And it is up to the Plaintiff to prove they can't cancel the ticket.
If you want real jury instructions - here they are:
http://www.justia.com/trials-litigat...i/300/325.html
If you want real jury instructions - here they are:
http://www.justia.com/trials-litigat...i/300/325.html
Your clarification is correct. I was not talking about Small Claims (and I wasn't very clear about that - sorry). No juries and no attorneys (unless the attorney is the party) in Small Claims, at least in California. (However, you can have an attorney if you appeal to Superior Court.)
Last edited by iluv2fly; Aug 1, 2012 at 4:59 am Reason: merge
Aug 1, 2012, 1:57 am
#3213
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SEA
Programs: AA 1MM Gold, AS MVP Gold. Happily ex-1K, ex-Exec Plat, ex-DL Diamond for 5 years each
Posts: 628
For all you "soon to be lawyers" I thought I would post some real information about "mistake." Here is the official jury instruction for use in a California court. What appears between brackets is where I substituted actual names for blanks in the instruction:
[United] claims that there was no contract because [it] was mistaken about [the final price being charged for certain first class tickets]. To succeed, [United] must prove all of the following:
1. That [United] was mistaken about [the price, in FF miles, which its computer said should be charged for the tickets];
2. That [Frequent Flyer ticket holder] knew [United] was mistaken and used that mistake to take advantage of [it];
3. That [United]’s mistake was not caused by [its] excessive carelessness; and
4. That [United] would not have agreed to enter into the contract if [it] had known about the mistake.
If you decide that [United] has proved all of the above, then no contract was created.
You can argue "excessive carelessness." You can argue "knew United was mistaken and used that mistake to take advantage of it." But you can't argue "once the computer sold me the ticket they were obligated."
[United] claims that there was no contract because [it] was mistaken about [the final price being charged for certain first class tickets]. To succeed, [United] must prove all of the following:
1. That [United] was mistaken about [the price, in FF miles, which its computer said should be charged for the tickets];
2. That [Frequent Flyer ticket holder] knew [United] was mistaken and used that mistake to take advantage of [it];
3. That [United]’s mistake was not caused by [its] excessive carelessness; and
4. That [United] would not have agreed to enter into the contract if [it] had known about the mistake.
If you decide that [United] has proved all of the above, then no contract was created.
You can argue "excessive carelessness." You can argue "knew United was mistaken and used that mistake to take advantage of it." But you can't argue "once the computer sold me the ticket they were obligated."
For anybody looking for California precedent, read Donovan v. RRL Corporation, which has a pretty good discussion on this. You can find it on Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...91648606149510
United will also argue (as someone else pointed out) right to cancel based on CoC. They are allowed to do both in a court of law, and get the benefit of whichever one is stronger. They only need to prevail on one of the two to win.
Sorry, it is late. Maybe you are just being sarcastic. But for the sake of others who might be reading this, and trying to understand, Mr. Merediths post is all bad information. In fact, his link (to CACI 325) is the same place that the correct jury instruction I posted (CACI 330) is from. And I am afraid that without further explanation I don't understand what language in the CoC he thinks is superior to Unilateral Mistake.
[have] the right to cancel reservations (whether or not confirmed) due to the Passenger’s failure to comply with the rules set forth herein, including but not limited to, the Passenger’s failure to pay for the applicable Ticket under the conditions applicable to the fare for such travel.
Look, United can claim that regardless of the price shown on the screen, the fare rules still included the full amount of miles to be deducted. Here's where the DOT rules (which look like they aren't going to be enforced) might come into play...
As I've said in previous posts, United will argue both positions and only has to win on one of them. There's no estoppel issue here.
Last edited by iluv2fly; Aug 1, 2012 at 5:00 am Reason: merge
Aug 1, 2012, 2:05 am
#3214
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Programs: Costco Club
Posts: 1,155
He isn't entirely wrong. United will try to argue, under Rule 5(B) of their CoC, that they:
This is in some ways an easier position for UA to argue than mistake, because it places the burden of proof on the plaintiff. Plaintiff has to show that there was a contract, and that the terms of the contract were for 4 miles, whereas UA can claim there was a contract, the terms were for full miles, and they cancelled the ticket for lack of payment.
Look, United can claim that regardless of the price shown on the screen, the fare rules still included the full amount of miles to be deducted. Here's where the DOT rules (which look like they aren't going to be enforced) might come into play...
As I've said in previous posts, United will argue both positions and only has to win on one of them.
This is in some ways an easier position for UA to argue than mistake, because it places the burden of proof on the plaintiff. Plaintiff has to show that there was a contract, and that the terms of the contract were for 4 miles, whereas UA can claim there was a contract, the terms were for full miles, and they cancelled the ticket for lack of payment.
Look, United can claim that regardless of the price shown on the screen, the fare rules still included the full amount of miles to be deducted. Here's where the DOT rules (which look like they aren't going to be enforced) might come into play...
As I've said in previous posts, United will argue both positions and only has to win on one of them.
Aug 1, 2012, 2:10 am
#3215
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,447
Aug 1, 2012, 2:35 am
#3217
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,447
Sorry, it is late. Maybe you are just being sarcastic. But for the sake of others who might be reading this, and trying to understand, Mr. Merediths post is all bad information. In fact, his link (to CACI 325) is the same place that the correct jury instruction I posted (CACI 330) is from. And I am afraid that without further explanation I don't understand what language in the CoC he thinks is superior to Unilateral Mistake.
I'm trying to decipher if you think CACI 330 is good for plaintiffs or United. I read it as very good for United - but I don't think United would even argue the contract was a mistake - they'd argue the contract is valid and they can cancel the ticket based on the agreed contract of carriage. Mistake doesn't even come into play.
Anyway - here is the link to CACA 330 for those interested - note the following:
"To prevail on a unilateral mistake claim, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff knew that the defendant was mistaken and that plaintiff used that mistake to take advantage of the defendant"
Obviously, everyone knew it was a mistake and people used that to their advantage.
http://www.justia.com/trials-litigat...i/300/330.html
Aug 1, 2012, 2:41 am
#3218
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Programs: Costco Club
Posts: 1,155
I'll agree - it is late, even here in Hawaii.
I'm trying to decipher if you think CACI 330 is good for plaintiffs or United. I read it as very good for United - but I don't think United would even argue the contract was a mistake - they'd argue the contract is valid and they can cancel the ticket based on the agreed contract of carriage. Mistake doesn't even come into play.
Anyway - here is the link to CACA 330 for those interested - note the following:
"To prevail on a unilateral mistake claim, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff knew that the defendant was mistaken and that plaintiff used that mistake to take advantage of the defendant"
Obviously, everyone knew it was a mistake and people used that to their advantage.
http://www.justia.com/trials-litigat...i/300/330.html
I'm trying to decipher if you think CACI 330 is good for plaintiffs or United. I read it as very good for United - but I don't think United would even argue the contract was a mistake - they'd argue the contract is valid and they can cancel the ticket based on the agreed contract of carriage. Mistake doesn't even come into play.
Anyway - here is the link to CACA 330 for those interested - note the following:
"To prevail on a unilateral mistake claim, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff knew that the defendant was mistaken and that plaintiff used that mistake to take advantage of the defendant"
Obviously, everyone knew it was a mistake and people used that to their advantage.
http://www.justia.com/trials-litigat...i/300/330.html
Aug 1, 2012, 3:57 am
#3219
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,447
Aug 1, 2012, 4:25 am
#3220
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
Really?
People have been fired from their jobs for buying airline tickets online on a Sunday Afternoon in a two hour period?
Please tell us more.
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
This thread gets further and further from reality with each post.
Nobody will lose their job because they bought airline tickets in this deal, at least not anybody who doesn't work for United or one of it's contractors.
People have been fired from their jobs for buying airline tickets online on a Sunday Afternoon in a two hour period?
Please tell us more.
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
This thread gets further and further from reality with each post.
Nobody will lose their job because they bought airline tickets in this deal, at least not anybody who doesn't work for United or one of it's contractors.
Aug 1, 2012, 5:54 am
#3221
formerly gohima
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 519
No, I didn't say this. I also wasn't insinuating that this would happen. I was using it as an example of the hardball legal tactics that UA has been known to play, to show that they have
In the specific case in question, it involved someone using a computer on an employer's network, during the work day, to purchase about a dozen fully refundable airline tickets, in the hopes of getting VDBed on one or more. UA sued the passenger. When attempts to collect against the passenger were completely unsuccessful (UA was finding it difficult convince a judge that the passenger had breached the CoC), they sent a nasty letter to the owner of the network alleging inappropriate use of the network (the employer had a publicly available network use policy), and found some technicality which they claimed the employee violated. I know the lawyer involved. It was not pretty.
UA has no grounds to proceed against any of the folks in question. But, getting involved in a lawsuit with UA sounds like something I want to avoid, because you open yourself up to a) all sorts of ......, dirty tactics; b) you open yourself up to all sorts of countersuits; c) winning is a complete crapshoot.
In the specific case in question, it involved someone using a computer on an employer's network, during the work day, to purchase about a dozen fully refundable airline tickets, in the hopes of getting VDBed on one or more. UA sued the passenger. When attempts to collect against the passenger were completely unsuccessful (UA was finding it difficult convince a judge that the passenger had breached the CoC), they sent a nasty letter to the owner of the network alleging inappropriate use of the network (the employer had a publicly available network use policy), and found some technicality which they claimed the employee violated. I know the lawyer involved. It was not pretty.
UA has no grounds to proceed against any of the folks in question. But, getting involved in a lawsuit with UA sounds like something I want to avoid, because you open yourself up to a) all sorts of ......, dirty tactics; b) you open yourself up to all sorts of countersuits; c) winning is a complete crapshoot.
Aug 1, 2012, 6:26 am
#3222
Join Date: Jul 2012
Programs: UA MP, DL Sky Miles
Posts: 153
No juries in small claims court.
If you do decide to have your case heard in front of a jury, that might be better. Juries aren't always the smartest in the bunch, whether we like to think it or not. A jury could just as easily decide that the defendant didn't prove their case, or a jury could just have a vendetta against the defendant. Juries are really weird sometimes.
In this particular matter, [United] (in my opinion) didn't act in good faith in handling the situation, and they didn't handle the situation the same for everybody (my understanding is that some people actually traveled) is there any collusion or fraud or deceit?
If you do decide to have your case heard in front of a jury, that might be better. Juries aren't always the smartest in the bunch, whether we like to think it or not. A jury could just as easily decide that the defendant didn't prove their case, or a jury could just have a vendetta against the defendant. Juries are really weird sometimes.
In this particular matter, [United] (in my opinion) didn't act in good faith in handling the situation, and they didn't handle the situation the same for everybody (my understanding is that some people actually traveled) is there any collusion or fraud or deceit?
Last edited by DianeDakota; Aug 1, 2012 at 8:18 am
Aug 1, 2012, 7:12 am
#3223
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dubai / NYC
Programs: EK-IO, UA-1K2MM, ETIHAD-GOLD, SPG-PLAT LIFETIME, JUMEIRAH SERIUS GOLD
Posts: 5,220
This is getting so silly. People now must resort to making crap up just to keep this thread alive 
Here's a question. I have not read it asked yet but perhaps I missed it. For all those screaming "small claims court". What is the limit for damages in Small claims? $1000?, $2000? You certainly can't be awarded a $20,000 tkt in small claims court so why do people still bring this up as a viable option? I doubt you could get a US-HKG tkt in Y from small claims?
Here's a question. I have not read it asked yet but perhaps I missed it. For all those screaming "small claims court". What is the limit for damages in Small claims? $1000?, $2000? You certainly can't be awarded a $20,000 tkt in small claims court so why do people still bring this up as a viable option? I doubt you could get a US-HKG tkt in Y from small claims?
Aug 1, 2012, 7:40 am
#3224
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
Thank you for your post (and also to ldpeters who had a very clear post). I think it was late for both of us.
Personally I have expressed my opinion far above - I think this is an awful case for the plaintiffs. I already posted some of my proposed deposition questions, on behalf of United, about 2,000 pages ago (well, it seems like 2,000 pages. My purpose in posting the jury instruction was to show how easy it would be for UAL to win on that defense to those who say "Well, once the computer sold it to me we had a contract." AND "There wasn't a mistake, the computer and the agent both told me that was the price."
The Judge is the finder of fact. The same law and the same burden of proof applies.
No, the fact that they let someone else fly who was either in the air or within a couple of days doesn't help you when they say "it was a mistake, and even though we felt the customers knew it was a mistake, we decided not to inconvenience people who were within 72 hours of departure and also it didn't hurt our load factors as badly because we had very little chance of reselling those seats in the next 72 hours"
The limit depends on the jurisdition. Currenly, in California, it is $7.500 under some circumstances.
Personally I have expressed my opinion far above - I think this is an awful case for the plaintiffs. I already posted some of my proposed deposition questions, on behalf of United, about 2,000 pages ago (well, it seems like 2,000 pages. My purpose in posting the jury instruction was to show how easy it would be for UAL to win on that defense to those who say "Well, once the computer sold it to me we had a contract." AND "There wasn't a mistake, the computer and the agent both told me that was the price."
Here's a question. I have not read it asked yet but perhaps I missed it. For all those screaming "small claims court". What is the limit for damages in Small claims? $1000?, $2000? You certainly can't be awarded a $20,000 tkt in small claims court so why do people still bring this up as a viable option? I doubt you could get a US-HKG tkt in Y from small claims?
Last edited by iluv2fly; Aug 1, 2012 at 8:50 am Reason: merge
Aug 1, 2012, 8:01 am
#3225
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Left
Programs: FT
Posts: 7,285
put me under oath, and i would cave...but up to that point, "i really just thought it was a good deal"....sort of a "social media" flash sale...