6 ms·

"There’s nothing illegal about breaching a contract." No there isn't. But there is something illegal about lying to police, filing false police reports, and us

by mnm1 10y ago

"There’s nothing illegal about breaching a contract." No there isn't. But there is something illegal about lying to police, filing false police reports, and using such false pretenses to assault and batter someone by proxy. There is no question United did this, it's illegal, and it's criminal. They should be charged by the prosecutor as should the cops who did the actual beating. They are equally responsible as United. The police failed to investigate and beat up an innocent person because of their failure to understand the situation. They should lose their jobs and pensions; ideally they should go to jail.

cortesoft 10y ago
Wait, how did they file a false police report? Even if they are breaking the contract, they are allowed to ask the passenger to leave the plane (as the article points out). Once he refuses to leave, he is trespassing (again, doesn't matter that the airline broke its contract by asking him to leave). The airline called the cops and asked them to remove the passenger. Where did they lie or file a false police report?
- mnm1 10y ago
  By saying or implying it is within their rights to remove the passenger when it clearly wasn't.
  - jdoliner 10y ago
    They are within their rights to remove the passenger though, it's just a breach of contract to do so. But they are within their rights to breach the contract, it just gives the other party the right to recoup damages.
  - cortesoft 10y ago
    What makes you think it ISN'T within their rights to remove the passenger? The plane is their property, they can ask someone to leave (even if they previously allowed them in). What law did they break? As the article says, they broke the contract, but that is a completely separate issue from being able to ask someone to leave.
  - oh_sigh 10y ago
    It's within the pilots rights to remove any passenger they want. United should have just asked the pilot to kick the guy off - that is 100% within the pilots rights.
    - jeltz 10y ago
      Yes and no. It is within the pilot's right to kick anyone off, but the airline might still be liable for damages for breach of contract if the reason for kicking him off is not covered by the contract or airline regulations. Overbooking and safety concerns are valid reasons, but in this case I have a hard time seeing how they could argue for either.
      - cortesoft 10y ago
        No one is trying to make the argument in this thread that United doesn't owe money to the passenger for kicking him off. The question is whether they are allowed to ask the police to remove him.
- HarryHirsch 10y ago
  Once he refuses to leave, he is trespassing You state that as fact, but is that true? The passenger and airline are bound by a contract of carriage, and the passenger arguably did not violate any of the stipulations in there. The airline had no business asking him to leave. I'd very much like to see this hashed out in court one way or the other, but the fear is that they'll settle without admission of liability and under seal.
  - slapshot 10y ago
    The article at least claims as much: "And once United in effect told Dao that it was breaching its contract with him and told him to get off, he was probably under a legal duty to comply."
    - thrill 10y ago
      "Probably" is not how laws work.
      - greenshackle2 10y ago
        It turns out laws are ambiguous and sometimes it's hard to tell what the outcome of a judgment will be in advance (until judges actually interpret the law and make the call.) It can be hard to even tell which specific laws apply to the case. So, yes, 'probably' is how the law works, if you don't have solid precedents. ('Probably' could also just mean that there is solid precedent but the author themselves didn't do the research to figure it out. Legal research is a lot of work. It's, like, an actual job to do that sort of thing.)
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Isn't it exactly how laws work? Even for the worst of crimes, the perpetrator will only probably get caught and only probably get convicted.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        "Probably" is perhaps one of the better ways for reporters to give their opinions on questions of law that have not yet had their day in court.
- 1024core 10y ago
  He is "trespassing" only when he's not legally allowed to be on the plane. He gained the right to be on the plane by paying United for the privilege, and United agreed by issuing him a ticket, a boarding pass and reserving a seat for him. Now, if they want to renege from their part of the agreement, they have to refund him the money. Just 'promising' to refund the money is not sufficient; if he wants, he must get the cash in hand. After all, United issued a ticket only when they had the cash in hand, right? Why should he be obligated to relinquish his half of the contract just based on a promise to pay later?
  - self-diversity 10y ago
    What about "logic at a distance" combined with empathy would make reasoning through the legal details of an incident you've only learned about through rabble-rousing reportage a worthwhile exercise?
  - SamReidHughes 10y ago
    Are you a lawyer, or are you making up the law? Somebody who orders a cheeseburger at a fast food joint can still get kicked out for no reason without getting their food. When they call the cops they'll get told it's a civil dispute and to take it to court. You don't just get to decide to stay on someone else's property based on your interpretation of a contract.
    - srtjstjsj 10y ago
      An airplane is not a McDonald's. That's why the FAA exists.
      - SamReidHughes 10y ago
        If you've got a specific point of fact about the law in mind, by all means articulate it.
  - cortesoft 10y ago
    What are you going on about? That isn't how the law works. 'if he wants, he must get the cash in hand' - says who? You might think that is how things SHOULD be, but they aren't. The only thing that SORT of works the way you describe would be a landlord-tenant situation, where there are legal requirements for evicting someone. However, that is a VERY special case; there are special laws for housing. There are not those sorts of laws for planes. Now, there are laws about refunding money and paying for breaking contracts on plane tickets, but not about REQUIRING that an airliner 'give cash in person' to someone who is kicked off a flight.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ufmace 10y ago
That's pretty far off on basically every point. There's no such thing as "using false pretenses to assault and batter someone by proxy". If you have authority to ask someone to leave, and call the police to enforce that, you have no control or responsibility over how they go about doing that. Regarding "lying to police" and "filing false police reports", all the police need to be concerned about is that he was asked to leave by someone with authority to do so, and refuses to leave. Airline pilots and other such proprietors generally have broad discretion to require people to leave. If he has a contract that requires him to be transported, then he has a civil claim against the airline, but the order to leave by the captain is still entirely legitimate. It is also not the responsibility of the police to investigate the reasons behind a request to leave and determine if they are legitimate or not according to contracts. The law recognizes that the courts are for making real determinations of facts, officers on a scene have broad discretion to do what appears to be the law based on the information they have at the time. And in this case, they were entirely right - the crew does have the authority to demand that someone leave and does not need to justify that to anyone. Failure to provide the service under contract is a civil claim to be addressed in court later. Or, the short version, this classic applies - you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. I really don't get the need in these media sensation cases to burn everyone involved at the stake. Isn't it bad enough what United actually did wrong, which is to have a dumb policy for how to handle overbookings and crew transport? For nobody to look at the situation there and step back and try to find someone else more willing to take another flight? There's a reason why we have due process instead of lynch mobs - the next person to make a mistake and be the target of the internet frenzy could be you. If you make a mistake someday and it gets blown up on the internet, wouldn't you rather face a reasoned punishment for the actual laws it can be proven that you actually broke, instead of having your life completely destroyed because everyone's really pissed off?
- onli 10y ago
  > If you have authority to ask someone to leave, and call the police to enforce that, you have no control or responsibility over how they go about doing that. It's actually highly questionable whether United had that authority. They are bound by contract, they are bound by regulations. They did not have the right to remove him or prevent boarding via overbooking regulations, as the passenger was already seated, and the plane was not overbooked. Also, they were not in the air, meaning the pilot does not have unlimited rights to control who is on the plane. Frankly, I see no legal means for United at all to remove him from the plane. They certainly did not have the authority via their own contract, the article goes into that. It's corporate propaganda to claim consumers have no rights. Consumers do have rights, there are contracts, laws and regulations. It is also not at all evident why the cops should follow the orders of United. Since United was in the wrong and did not have the authority, it was just wrong for the cops to follow their orders. They already got punished, and it is absolutely possible this will have more legal consequences for them. And for United.
cowardlydragon 10y ago
And who do you criminally sue in a corporation? Who goes to jail? A piece of paper? It's a person that doesn't exist. It's assets are fiat currency that exist as 1s and 0s and barely bound to national borders. Modern corporations have mastered something the Nazis once did: distribution of blame across an organization so the quantized bits of evil performed by each person in a process chain is enough for their consciences to survive, but the net effect of evil is attained. It basically is RAID5 for evil. Distribute and make minimally redundant the execution of evil, to make resilient against accounting, investigation, blame, and of course, liability.

by mnm1 10y ago

cortesoft 10y ago

Wait, how did they file a false police report? Even if they are breaking the contract, they are allowed to ask the passenger to leave the plane (as the article points out). Once he refuses to leave, he is trespassing (again, doesn't matter that the airline broke its contract by asking him to leave). The airline called the cops and asked them to remove the passenger. Where did they lie or file a false police report?

mnm1 10y ago
By saying or implying it is within their rights to remove the passenger when it clearly wasn't.
- jdoliner 10y ago
  They are within their rights to remove the passenger though, it's just a breach of contract to do so. But they are within their rights to breach the contract, it just gives the other party the right to recoup damages.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  What makes you think it ISN'T within their rights to remove the passenger? The plane is their property, they can ask someone to leave (even if they previously allowed them in). What law did they break? As the article says, they broke the contract, but that is a completely separate issue from being able to ask someone to leave.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  It's within the pilots rights to remove any passenger they want. United should have just asked the pilot to kick the guy off - that is 100% within the pilots rights.
  - jeltz 10y ago
    Yes and no. It is within the pilot's right to kick anyone off, but the airline might still be liable for damages for breach of contract if the reason for kicking him off is not covered by the contract or airline regulations. Overbooking and safety concerns are valid reasons, but in this case I have a hard time seeing how they could argue for either.
    - cortesoft 10y ago
      No one is trying to make the argument in this thread that United doesn't owe money to the passenger for kicking him off. The question is whether they are allowed to ask the police to remove him.
HarryHirsch 10y ago
Once he refuses to leave, he is trespassing You state that as fact, but is that true? The passenger and airline are bound by a contract of carriage, and the passenger arguably did not violate any of the stipulations in there. The airline had no business asking him to leave. I'd very much like to see this hashed out in court one way or the other, but the fear is that they'll settle without admission of liability and under seal.
- slapshot 10y ago
  The article at least claims as much: "And once United in effect told Dao that it was breaching its contract with him and told him to get off, he was probably under a legal duty to comply."
  - thrill 10y ago
    "Probably" is not how laws work.
    - greenshackle2 10y ago
      It turns out laws are ambiguous and sometimes it's hard to tell what the outcome of a judgment will be in advance (until judges actually interpret the law and make the call.) It can be hard to even tell which specific laws apply to the case. So, yes, 'probably' is how the law works, if you don't have solid precedents. ('Probably' could also just mean that there is solid precedent but the author themselves didn't do the research to figure it out. Legal research is a lot of work. It's, like, an actual job to do that sort of thing.)
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Isn't it exactly how laws work? Even for the worst of crimes, the perpetrator will only probably get caught and only probably get convicted.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      "Probably" is perhaps one of the better ways for reporters to give their opinions on questions of law that have not yet had their day in court.
1024core 10y ago
He is "trespassing" only when he's not legally allowed to be on the plane. He gained the right to be on the plane by paying United for the privilege, and United agreed by issuing him a ticket, a boarding pass and reserving a seat for him. Now, if they want to renege from their part of the agreement, they have to refund him the money. Just 'promising' to refund the money is not sufficient; if he wants, he must get the cash in hand. After all, United issued a ticket only when they had the cash in hand, right? Why should he be obligated to relinquish his half of the contract just based on a promise to pay later?
- self-diversity 10y ago
  What about "logic at a distance" combined with empathy would make reasoning through the legal details of an incident you've only learned about through rabble-rousing reportage a worthwhile exercise?
- SamReidHughes 10y ago
  Are you a lawyer, or are you making up the law? Somebody who orders a cheeseburger at a fast food joint can still get kicked out for no reason without getting their food. When they call the cops they'll get told it's a civil dispute and to take it to court. You don't just get to decide to stay on someone else's property based on your interpretation of a contract.
  - srtjstjsj 10y ago
    An airplane is not a McDonald's. That's why the FAA exists.
    - SamReidHughes 10y ago
      If you've got a specific point of fact about the law in mind, by all means articulate it.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  What are you going on about? That isn't how the law works. 'if he wants, he must get the cash in hand' - says who? You might think that is how things SHOULD be, but they aren't. The only thing that SORT of works the way you describe would be a landlord-tenant situation, where there are legal requirements for evicting someone. However, that is a VERY special case; there are special laws for housing. There are not those sorts of laws for planes. Now, there are laws about refunding money and paying for breaking contracts on plane tickets, but not about REQUIRING that an airliner 'give cash in person' to someone who is kicked off a flight.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ufmace 10y ago

That's pretty far off on basically every point. There's no such thing as "using false pretenses to assault and batter someone by proxy". If you have authority to ask someone to leave, and call the police to enforce that, you have no control or responsibility over how they go about doing that. Regarding "lying to police" and "filing false police reports", all the police need to be concerned about is that he was asked to leave by someone with authority to do so, and refuses to leave. Airline pilots and other such proprietors generally have broad discretion to require people to leave. If he has a contract that requires him to be transported, then he has a civil claim against the airline, but the order to leave by the captain is still entirely legitimate. It is also not the responsibility of the police to investigate the reasons behind a request to leave and determine if they are legitimate or not according to contracts. The law recognizes that the courts are for making real determinations of facts, officers on a scene have broad discretion to do what appears to be the law based on the information they have at the time. And in this case, they were entirely right - the crew does have the authority to demand that someone leave and does not need to justify that to anyone. Failure to provide the service under contract is a civil claim to be addressed in court later. Or, the short version, this classic applies - you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. I really don't get the need in these media sensation cases to burn everyone involved at the stake. Isn't it bad enough what United actually did wrong, which is to have a dumb policy for how to handle overbookings and crew transport? For nobody to look at the situation there and step back and try to find someone else more willing to take another flight? There's a reason why we have due process instead of lynch mobs - the next person to make a mistake and be the target of the internet frenzy could be you. If you make a mistake someday and it gets blown up on the internet, wouldn't you rather face a reasoned punishment for the actual laws it can be proven that you actually broke, instead of having your life completely destroyed because everyone's really pissed off?

onli 10y ago
> If you have authority to ask someone to leave, and call the police to enforce that, you have no control or responsibility over how they go about doing that. It's actually highly questionable whether United had that authority. They are bound by contract, they are bound by regulations. They did not have the right to remove him or prevent boarding via overbooking regulations, as the passenger was already seated, and the plane was not overbooked. Also, they were not in the air, meaning the pilot does not have unlimited rights to control who is on the plane. Frankly, I see no legal means for United at all to remove him from the plane. They certainly did not have the authority via their own contract, the article goes into that. It's corporate propaganda to claim consumers have no rights. Consumers do have rights, there are contracts, laws and regulations. It is also not at all evident why the cops should follow the orders of United. Since United was in the wrong and did not have the authority, it was just wrong for the cops to follow their orders. They already got punished, and it is absolutely possible this will have more legal consequences for them. And for United.

cowardlydragon 10y ago

And who do you criminally sue in a corporation? Who goes to jail? A piece of paper? It's a person that doesn't exist. It's assets are fiat currency that exist as 1s and 0s and barely bound to national borders. Modern corporations have mastered something the Nazis once did: distribution of blame across an organization so the quantized bits of evil performed by each person in a process chain is enough for their consciences to survive, but the net effect of evil is attained. It basically is RAID5 for evil. Distribute and make minimally redundant the execution of evil, to make resilient against accounting, investigation, blame, and of course, liability.