crazy LAX-SYD on QF First $1200!!!!

[thewinchester]

It seems that plenty of people who did book don't think it's sufficient, judging by the pages of whinging and threats of class action lawsuits going on in the FT forum. :-|

Did I call it, or did I call it

 

[simongr]

This is the holy grail of fare mistakes! I've got 6 on hold!

This says it all.I agree with Dave Noble on this one.

Which part of what Dave said do you agree with - the bit about people out to screw AA? I just see this as someone seeing a bargain and making the most out of it - Dave seems to think something malicious is going on...

 

[drron]

Which part of what Dave said do you agree with - the bit about people out to screw AA? I just see this as someone seeing a bargain and making the most out of it - Dave seems to think something malicious is going on...

There is a subset of FTers that really are out to screw anyone they can,continually on the look out for mistake fares or rates,jumping on them and then crying foul when those mistakes not honoured.My view of that activity corresponds I think to Dave's view.I cant see where he says that is malicious and I'm not going to use that word.It is however behaviour that I would not engage in.

 

[medhead]

Who is "they"?

The person I was replying to claimed to be an EXP for 10 years, who frequently booked premium cabins, and who thought this was a legitimate fare. I find that hard to believe.

A non-frequent traveller, who never checks prices, and who never looks at the sale information on a company's website, might think it's legitimate. But who looks for first class fares from LAX-SYD, for the first time ever, and doesn't have lots of money to play with?

Assuming you are Anonymous Crowd on FT then they is you. (sorry I don't follow FT so I'm not sure on this cross over matters).

the person I was replying to claimed that you got it right. I was simply pointing out that it was only right for "experienced" people. i.e. half right.

 

[Leumas]

My understanding is that the fare basis was always Q, just that the booking class it went into was A. The 1st letter of Fare Basis does not always match the booking clas to use and seems that someone screwed up

I believe number_6 has a ticket with a fare basis of 'A'. Then, it got changed to 'Q'. I think there was even a stage where there was no fare basis displayed at all.

It's unclear whether number_6 has been approached by AA since.

Mind you, all this happened within a couple of hours...

 

[davidj-bell]

If i went to a shop and bought a case of beer and it scanned at the single bottle price and the check out person accepted that and I walked out what should I do if the store manager comes running out and asks for his case of beer back?

I'm not a lawyer, but I thought most contracts had a "E&OE" (Errors and Ommissions Excepted) type clauses.

I think in your example, the difference is that the case of beer has been sold, and you've walked out of the store, whereas (I assume) the travel had yet to commence. I think it would be difficult for AA to try to claw back the money after you had flown.

 

[Lonely Flyer]

The first thing that anyone taking court action will need to prove is that they did not believe or know the fare was a mistake. A difficult task indeed unless they are infrequent flyers and are not members of a frequent flyer forum.

 

[Mal]

The first thing that anyone taking court action will need to prove is that they did not believe or know the fare was a mistake. A difficult task indeed unless they are infrequent flyers and are not members of a frequent flyer forum.

It would be very hard indeed - especially when the FF records for the passenger are pulled by the airline.

 

[simongr]

I'm not a lawyer, but I thought most contracts had a "E&OE" (Errors and Ommissions Excepted) type clauses.

I think in your example, the difference is that the case of beer has been sold, and you've walked out of the store, whereas (I assume) the travel had yet to commence. I think it would be difficult for AA to try to claw back the money after you had flown.

I disagree with this. The airlines are happy to commit me to travel and conditions when ticketed not when travelled so why should we not hold them accountable on the same basis?

The first thing that anyone taking court action will need to prove is that they did not believe or know the fare was a mistake. A difficult task indeed unless they are infrequent flyers and are not members of a frequent flyer forum.

I would think there is a difference between an offer for sale and a contract of sale. I would agree that unless ticketed it would be hard to compel the Airline to uphold an advertised fare that was a mistake. However if ticketed then that is a contract.

Since when was "I made a mistake and didnt realise that I wasnt making any money on the deal" become a valid defence in court?

I thought ignorance or stupidity were not valid defences in court?

 

[Dave Noble]

Since when was "I made a mistake and didnt realise that I wasnt making any money on the deal" become a valid defence in court?

Many places ( such as UK and I believe AU ) do have provision for protection against mistake pricing.

Dave

 

[markis10]

Many places ( such as UK and I believe AU ) do have provision for protection against mistake pricing.

Dave

As it is a consumer issue in Australia it would be based on individual state laws rather than federal laws IMHO, while some states have provisons for mistakes others are less lenient, case in point was the famous Hard Drive mistake pricing a few years back, unlike many other cases this one saw comment from the NSW Fair Trading Office that basiclaly implied that the vendor was obligated to supply the goods if they had taken the monies, subsequently the vendor changed tack and supplied goods for "consumers" that had paid, commercial orders and unpaid orders were not honoured as they were not covered. The same vendor recently had to supply a huge lot of very cheap monitors to Taiwanese consumers for the same reasons but obviously under different laws.

In the context of the current AA issue I dont think it matters, its hardly likely any agency would have the power to act in Australia on this matter and I doubt any Australian Laws would be applicable, but I do believe the recent QF mistake maybe being honoured because of those very same laws, as the transactions would probably be deemed to have occured in NSW. Food for thought, ironically this thread now seems more active the the Ft one!

 

[oz_mark]

The same vendor recently had to supply a huge lot of very cheap monitors to Taiwanese consumers for the same reasons but obviously under different laws.

Is it just me, or are 'pricing errors' are regular feature on the Dell website?

 

[AnonymousCoward]

the person I was replying to claimed that you got it right. I was simply pointing out that it was only right for "experienced" people. i.e. half right.

Hi,

It was my post, and I was only talking about a single person. someone who stated they were EXP for 10 years, and had booked many premium cabin flights. In that case, I feel I'm 100% right WRT to that person. I'm not talking about any other people. Hope that clarifies.

 

[Will]

In the context of the current AA issue I dont think it matters, its hardly likely any agency would have the power to act in Australia on this matter and I doubt any Australian Laws would be applicable, but I do believe the recent QF mistake maybe being honoured because of those very same laws, as the transactions would probably be deemed to have occured in NSW.

Well for some Australian based purchasers, the tickets were sold from the americanairlines.com.au website, which would mean they were issued in AUD from the Sydney office. Seems pretty clear that Australian consumer protection laws would apply.

 

[Skoogle]

Seems pretty clear that Australian consumer protection laws would apply.

Following the domain name, via the ABN, than an ASIC search - It ends up as being registered as a NSW.

 

[medhead]

Hi,

It was my post, and I was only talking about a single person. someone who stated they were EXP for 10 years, and had booked many premium cabin flights. In that case, I feel I'm 100% right WRT to that person. I'm not talking about any other people. Hope that clarifies.

Just for extra clarity, Oneworldplus2, quoted a post (that I now know was yours) and said that you got it right. I pointed out that you put in a big caveat about any experienced traveller. So yes you are right WRT to that person and WRT any experienced traveller. But in the context of the post from Oneworldplus2 IMO you are only half right because of the factor of an inexperienced traveller.

So to clarify I was not really reply to you.

 

[medhead]

Since when was "I made a mistake and didnt realise that I wasnt making any money on the deal" become a valid defence in court?

Many places ( such as UK and I believe AU ) do have provision for protection against mistake pricing.

Dave

Actually there is no protection. This is what I've been banging on about. In forming a contract there is no requirement for either party to get fair value. If one party does legally enter into a contract, the contract is not invalidated because that party isn't getting fair value.

This is based on the legal training I got from a NSW government lawyer for a past job. They quoted case law to do with a divorce where the husband agreed for the wife to sell the flash car and then split the proceeds as part of the settlement. She sold the car for something like $1000 (to stuff up the husband) instead of something like (the) $40000 market value. The fact that she sold for less than fair value and at a loss did not void the contract.

 

[davidj-bell]

Actually there is no protection. This is what I've been banging on about. In forming a contract there is no requirement for either party to get fair value. If one party does legally enter into a contract, the contract is not invalidated because that party isn't getting fair value.

This is based on the legal training I got from a NSW government lawyer for a past job. They quoted case law to do with a divorce where the husband agreed for the wife to sell the flash car and then split the proceeds as part of the settlement. She sold the car for something like $1000 (to stuff up the husband) instead of something like (the) $40000 market value. The fact that she sold for less than fair value and at a loss did not void the contract.

Yes, our courts don't consider "fair value" when determining if a contract is valid or not.

There are 5 rules for determining if a contract is in place:
an offer
an acceptance of the offer
consideration (ie money)
intention to create legal relations
that the subject be legal

It's the area of offer and acceptance that is the issue - did AA mean to offer such a price? The courts will consider if there is a "meeting of the minds", ie did both parties intend to contract on the terms of the contract. Clearly, AA did not intend to do this, but courts sometimes take the view that a large organisation ought to have known what offers it was offering.

My caveat: I'm not a lawyer, but I did do contracts in a uni subject.

 

[medhead]

It's the area of offer and acceptance that is the issue - did AA mean to offer such a price? The courts will consider if there is a "meeting of the minds", ie did both parties intend to contract on the terms of the contract. Clearly, AA did not intend to do this, but courts sometimes take the view that a large organisation ought to have known what offers it was offering.

My caveat: I'm not a lawyer, but I did do contracts in a uni subject.

Clearly your legal training is vastly superior to mine. But I would guess that in terms of intention, the making of an offer by AA might be considered prima facie proof of intent.

 

[simongr]

It's the area of offer and acceptance that is the issue - did AA mean to offer such a price?

This is the benefit of the litigous US system - if you make a contract the contract defines the terms - not some random interpretation - it is one of the major issues with their accounting and reporting - form over substance