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

[davidj-bell]

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.

I wouldn't say that my training is superior to yours! But my guess is that if AA have offered the flights on their website, there is an argument that they intended to offer them (otherwise, why are they on the website?). But I'm also sure that there'll be a clause in the contract that exempts them for any unintended offers (I've not read the contract, so I have no idea, but working for large corporates they tend to put all sorts of things into contracts to cover themselves, so I would be surprised if they haven't got something in there to cover this scenario).

This is why there is an arms race between consumer contracts becoming wordy, and consumer protection laws to stop corporates putting things in the fine print, knowing full well people don't/won't read it.

 

[medhead]

I wouldn't say that my training is superior to yours!

I would

 

[Lonely Flyer]

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?



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?

Courts will not enforce a contract where one party is knowingly trying to take advantage of a mistake by the other party. There is a long existing principle that the party seeking to enforce an agreement must come to the court with "clean hands".

 

[markis10]

Courts will not enforce a contract where one party is knowingly trying to take advantage of a mistake by the other party. There is a long existing principle that the party seeking to enforce an agreement must come to the court with "clean hands".

Not so for the UK high court, a contract is not invalid just because one of the parties is mistaken about its basis and the other side wishes to proceed regardless. A contract can be invalidated if one of its actual terms is a mistake, but not if the mistake simply forms a part of one party's understanding, see Statoil vs Louis Dreyfus, 2008, Statoil ASA v Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP [2008] EWHC 2257 (Comm) (29 September 2008)

In the US a party may not avoid a contract on the grounds of mutual mistake when it assumed the risk of that mistake. Winter v. Skoglund, 404 N.W.2d 786, 793 (Minn.1987) (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 152 (1981)). However courts will frequently void a contract where there has been a mutual mistake so long as the mistake is related to the essential elements of the contract itself, if there was an offer to treat then I am not sure it can be see as being taken advantage of, even if that offer to treat was an error on the part of one party. My two cents, not a lawyer not a purchaser of any AA tickets recently