United Airlines Threatens to Engage Collections for Passengers Who Skip Segments • Hacker News Board

Re: United Airlines Threatens to Engage Collections for Passengers Who Skip Segments

#81

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Oct 15, 2018, 10:04 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #74

Someone1234 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument fails hard at point #1. A ticket buyer, through merely the act of purchasing a ticket, isn't making a material representation. You should have argued contract law. That's perhaps a winning argument. Civil Fraud isn't because you'd have to argue that the simple act of clicking a "buy" button on a web-site is akin to a representation, and by extension a misrepresenting, an argument which you'd never win.…

> Civil Fraud isn't because you'd have to argue that the simple act of clicking a "buy" button on a web-site is akin to misrepresenting, which you'll never win. Are you an attorney? Putting an origin and a destination in a form and asking for the price is a clear representation of intent, not to mention buying said ticket. Intent need not be verbally communicated; any conduct that is recognized as a representation is…

> Putting an origin and a destination in a form and asking for the price is a clear representation of intent, not to mention buying said ticket.

It's a clear representation of intent to purchase the ticket.

Whether it is a representation of intent to use every leg of travel included as part of that ticket is...at best, a point on which you have provided no supporting evidence, reasoning, or case law.

I think its pretty obvious that in the general case purchase of a composite (or bulk) good or service is not a representation of intent to use all the components, do if you think there is something special about either multileg airline tickets in general or United’s tickets in particular that warrants different treatment, please, feel free to enlighten us.

> It absolutely holds up, in the same way that clicking an "I agree" button in an online transaction is a representation of agreement, which courts have already held to be valid

No, it doesn't, and the cases are readily distinguished, because the representation you wish to infer is (unlike the “I agree” case for contract formation) of a different intent than what is expressly stated by the UI element being interacted with. We aren't arguing over whether a “buy” button indicates intent to buy tickets, but whether it is a representation of intent to use every leg of travel covered by the purchased tickets. Even if the contract of carriage has language to that effect, which might give you a breach of contract claim, I don't think you’ll find much support for the use of language in a contract of adhesion as a representation by the non-drafting party for fraud claim.

Re: United Airlines Threatens to Engage Collections for Passengers Who Skip Segments

#82

Post by flubert » Mon, Oct 15, 2018, 10:06 PM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #72

Warning: general rant about the cost of flights. I am genuinely entirely fucking sick of the awful experience of booking air travel. The thought of doing it fills me with dread now. Here is a recent example: a return flight booked with my partner from the UK to the US. His company later wants to send him to a conference in a place nearby a couple of days prior, and of course will happily pay for travel there, and on…

>Literally nobody gains from this.

Small consolation, but we can think of airline shenanigans like this as just another hassle that makes flying less convenient / enjoyable, and so people will take fewer flights. Air travel (especially intercontinental flights) are a large fraction of a western individuals contribution to global warming. So the earth thanks you.

https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=air%20travel%20climate%20chang...

Re: United Airlines Threatens to Engage Collections for Passengers Who Skip Segments

#83

Post by otterley » Mon, Oct 15, 2018, 10:11 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #81

otterley wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Civil Fraud isn't because you'd have to argue that the simple act of clicking a "buy" button on a web-site is akin to misrepresenting, which you'll never win. Are you an attorney? Putting an origin and a destination in a form and asking for the price is a clear representation of intent, not to mention buying said ticket. Intent need not be verbally communicated; any conduct that is recognized as a representation is…

> Putting an origin and a destination in a form and asking for the price is a clear representation of intent, not to mention buying said ticket. It's a clear representation of intent to purchase the ticket. Whether it is a representation of intent to use every leg of travel included as part of that ticket is...at best, a point on which you have provided no supporting evidence, reasoning, or case law. I think its pret…

> Whether it is a representation of intent to use every leg of travel included as part of that ticket is...at best, a point on which you have provided no supporting evidence, reasoning, or case law.

You're trying to find a loophole that, as a former Federal court intern, I find extremely unlikely to persuade any reasonable judge. When you declare your destination to be ILM in the search field, one can reasonably infer that your intent is, in fact, to travel to ILM. I concede that there's no case law yet on this subject, but I would be surprised if it made it out of the "laughed out of court" stage if you argued otherwise.

Re: United Airlines Threatens to Engage Collections for Passengers Who Skip Segments

#84

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Oct 15, 2018, 10:12 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #79

dragonwriter wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Purchasing a good or service with multiple components is not, in and of itself, a representation to the seller of intent to use all the components. Now, there could be something United has inserted in the purchase flow of all multileg tickets which assures that the purchaser makes a representation of intent to use every leg, though I've never seen anything like that when purchasing tickets (and a contract of adhesion…

> Purchasing a good or service with multiple components is not, in and of itself, a representation to the seller of intent to use all the components. Do you have a legal citation for this? I'm unaware of any law that supports this assertion. In any event, the representation in question is "I want to fly from city A to city B." It's pretty reasonable for an airline to conclude that when a passenger makes this request,…

> Do you have a legal citation for this?

As far as I am aware, no one has actually attempted to make a fraud claim on the grounds that mere purchase (and/or the statement of intent to purchase) a composite good or service was a representation by the buyer to the seller of intent to use every portion of the good or service so sold and had the case survive to a published decision on that question.

But, you know, if you can find a case supporting your claim that this intent would clearly be inferred from such an aggregate purchase, I'd love to hear it.

Re: United Airlines Threatens to Engage Collections for Passengers Who Skip Segments

#85

Post by cft » Mon, Oct 15, 2018, 10:12 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #77

cft wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I habitually don't like fries? Say I have done it 2000 times?

What is the point of this debate? Only the fictional McDonald's in your fictional scenario knows. It's an unlikely situation to begin with, so let's stick to the facts at hand.

We bought a Juniper router on sale for $120,000 and did not use some of its functionality. A base model without this functionality was offered at $150,000 by the same salesperson. I can get the quotes and the invoice. Can Juniper force us to pay the difference and report to D&B?

Re: United Airlines Threatens to Engage Collections for Passengers Who Skip Segments

#86

Post by Someone1234 » Mon, Oct 15, 2018, 10:13 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #74

Someone1234 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument fails hard at point #1. A ticket buyer, through merely the act of purchasing a ticket, isn't making a material representation. You should have argued contract law. That's perhaps a winning argument. Civil Fraud isn't because you'd have to argue that the simple act of clicking a "buy" button on a web-site is akin to a representation, and by extension a misrepresenting, an argument which you'd never win.…

> Civil Fraud isn't because you'd have to argue that the simple act of clicking a "buy" button on a web-site is akin to misrepresenting, which you'll never win. Are you an attorney? Putting an origin and a destination in a form and asking for the price is a clear representation of intent, not to mention buying said ticket. Intent need not be verbally communicated; any conduct that is recognized as a representation is…

> Intent need not be verbally communicated; any conduct that is recognized as a representation is sufficient.

Indeed. You're arguing that the mere act of buying is and of itself a representation, which is erroneous. The whole rest of your arguments fall apart because that one core detail is wrong.

> It absolutely holds up, in the same way that clicking an "I agree" button in an online transaction is a representation of agreement

Clicking "I agree" binds both parties to a contract, but we are talking elements of civil fraud not contract law. You were arguing that consumers were committing civil fraud by pressing a buy button due to some supposed representations you're insisting they're making. Let's stay on topic here.

Re: United Airlines Threatens to Engage Collections for Passengers Who Skip Segments

#87

Post by lovich » Mon, Oct 15, 2018, 10:13 PM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #64

otterley wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attorney here! (Not providing legal advice, though.) The elements of common law civil fraud are as follows: 1. Somebody intentionally misrepresents a material fact in order to obtain action or forbearance by another person ("I am traveling to ILM from SFO" but in fact is going to IAD); 2. The other person relies upon the misrepresentation (United prices the fare as though the passenger were going to ILM instead of IA…

Let's see how far can we take this ridiculous bullshit. If some business discriminates against blacks, is it fraud to intentionally misrepresent oneself as white?

It might actually be? That's a curious question. In reality I doubt any business would bring it up as their discrimination would get them in much bigger trouble with the law, but the law does allow for multiple parties to be incorrect.

Are there any lawyers here who know if there is case law showing someone getting prosecuted for fraud when the fraud in question was to avoid already illegal activity?

Re: United Airlines Threatens to Engage Collections for Passengers Who Skip Segments

#88

Post by InclinedPlane » Mon, Oct 15, 2018, 10:14 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #63

cft wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I order a meal at McDonald's and don't eat the fries, is that fraud, because the cost of a burger plus soda separately maybe more than the meal with a burger, soda and the fries?

Technically yes, but the injury is de minimis so McDonald's isn't likely to demand recompense in this situation.

Not at all, eating is not part of the contract, only receipt. If you buy a meal at McDonald's and throw all of it in the trash, that's not fraud. It's yours to do with how you please.

Re: United Airlines Threatens to Engage Collections for Passengers Who Skip Segments

#89

Post by Someone1234 » Mon, Oct 15, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #79

dragonwriter wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Purchasing a good or service with multiple components is not, in and of itself, a representation to the seller of intent to use all the components. Now, there could be something United has inserted in the purchase flow of all multileg tickets which assures that the purchaser makes a representation of intent to use every leg, though I've never seen anything like that when purchasing tickets (and a contract of adhesion…

> Purchasing a good or service with multiple components is not, in and of itself, a representation to the seller of intent to use all the components. Do you have a legal citation for this? I'm unaware of any law that supports this assertion. In any event, the representation in question is "I want to fly from city A to city B." It's pretty reasonable for an airline to conclude that when a passenger makes this request,…

> Do you have a legal citation for this? I'm unaware of any law that supports this assertion.

One could argue the same about every post you've made on this topic thus far. You're arguing that simply the act of buying something is a representation, which can then result in misrespections ala fraud, but you've provided no legal citations and the one citation you have provided was about contractual agreements which aren't in scope here.

Re: United Airlines Threatens to Engage Collections for Passengers Who Skip Segments

#90

Post by otterley » Mon, Oct 15, 2018, 10:18 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #86

otterley wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Civil Fraud isn't because you'd have to argue that the simple act of clicking a "buy" button on a web-site is akin to misrepresenting, which you'll never win. Are you an attorney? Putting an origin and a destination in a form and asking for the price is a clear representation of intent, not to mention buying said ticket. Intent need not be verbally communicated; any conduct that is recognized as a representation is…

> Intent need not be verbally communicated; any conduct that is recognized as a representation is sufficient. Indeed. You're arguing that the mere act of buying is and of itself a representation, which is erroneous. The whole rest of your arguments fall apart because that one core detail is wrong. > It absolutely holds up, in the same way that clicking an "I agree" button in an online transaction is a representation…

> Indeed. You're arguing that the mere act of buying is and of itself a representation, which is erroneous.

It's not the purchase that is the representation. It is the communication that you want to fly to a particular city by placing it in the destination field or by telling it to the ticket agent.

I'm tired of arguing this to amateurs; take it to a judge and try it yourself. I'll bring the popcorn.