My take was that the contracts were voided on the grounds of mistake. Those are set out clearly in the judgment:
Agree, and this itself would not have made any material effect to what follows.
[30] ... either proceeds on a course of willful ignorance designed to inhibit his own actual knowledge of the other’s mistake, or deliberately sets out to ensure that the other party does not become aware of the mistake…
In this case the OP has made contact with the airline and is not trying to conceal the mistake (if it even is one). For TG to turn around at some later stage, after being given fair warning and opportunity to rectify the situation, and claim the contract is invalid due to mistake would be to unfairly disadvantage the passenger if they have relied on the airline's prior confirmation.
This part 30 was raised, because it was point of the argument, raised by one / both of the parties (can't be bothered reading the whole thing again).
This is where you have missed the most important point, of whether, you are deliberating accepting a contract which you know is wrong.
If you ask customer service, whether this ticket is OK to travel, customer service say sure no worries. This is just asking if the contract is good on surface, but you have not made the defendant (TG air) aware that the ticket is wrong. For what it is worth, if this was in Canada, the agency could further point the finger at you, that not only you did not accept this contract in good faith, but by asking if the contract is good, but not raising that this contract maybe substantially wrong, that you are further deliberately acting in 'bad' faith.
If you ask customer service, whether this ticket is OK because this ticket is so cheap, customer service says OK, then TG cancels a few days later, the Agency could also come back with their expectation of the airline killing the ticket "no later than 72 hours after the carrier becomes aware of the publishing of a fare".
in this case the fare of USD1058 is cheap, but not outside the bounds of reasonableness.
you missed what I quoted above. Let's check this out again.
[29] Several complainants submit that a number of Swiss’s Star Alliance partners have had ongoing fare sales for transatlantic travel in first and business class in the same range as those in question
Here is your argument, that USD 1000 is cheap, but not that cheap.
Then, the Agency bite back
[48]The Agency has considered these arguments and finds that a reasonable person ought to have known that a total cost of approximately US$1000 for first and business class travel from Yangon to Eastern Canada is not simply a low ticket price, but a mistake.
And even if you provide evidence to support your argument that, USD 1000 is cheap but not that cheap, because many other airlines are selling around the same price ...
[49]The Agency considers that these fares could be anomalies and in their own right, could have been mistaken fares.
I am reading between the line here, but the Agency could be suggesting that, price is only a consideration of the contract, but itself does not indicate if the offer / contract is substantially wrong. This is one of the tests of a contract :
consideration. There must be a consideration, but the consideration does not have to be, of 'market value' (sorry I forgot the term now). That means, if I sell you a Samsung S10, I cannot sell it to you for $0 legally, for nothing, because there would be no consideration (I give you phone, I get nothing). However, I can sell you the Samsung S10 for $1, which would be legal, because I am getting $1 from you, despite, in reality, this would be very funny. This is the reason why you hear on the news of companies being sold for $1, because $1 is the consideration. And to summarise this paragraph, this means, the price of the ticket is possibility irrelevant to our discussion at all.
I am not a member of a tribunal, I am not here to argue right or wrong. My point of posting, is to demonstrate:
1 - the risk of buying these tickets, legally;
2 - asking the airline if your 'ultra cheap' ticket is OK to travel, is likely to be pointless, legally;
3 - action 2 above may end up, causing staffs to change their action, from leaving you alone, to cancelling your ticket, politically.
Having something in writing will (a) confirm you’re intention to travel and (b) go a long way to protecting the additional expenses if the airline does cancel out on you.
