4 ms·

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

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.
bradleyjg 10y ago
A license is by definition revocable. Wrongful revocation may give rise to a breach of contract claim but it is still effective for the purpose of property law. They don't need to immediately pay damages in order to make it effective. Failure to vacate following a license revocation, including a wrongful revocation, is trespass. His remedy was in the form of a cause of action against United, not self help in the form of refusing to leave the plane. Many people seem to think this is unjust. I don't necessarily disagree, but there's no need to go around the internet attacking the messengers. If you don't like how the laws work, write your legislators.
- srtjstjsj 10y ago
  By your reasoning, there certainly is a need to go around attacking the messengers. The messengers can file a lawsuit later if they disagree.

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.

bradleyjg 10y ago

A license is by definition revocable. Wrongful revocation may give rise to a breach of contract claim but it is still effective for the purpose of property law. They don't need to immediately pay damages in order to make it effective. Failure to vacate following a license revocation, including a wrongful revocation, is trespass. His remedy was in the form of a cause of action against United, not self help in the form of refusing to leave the plane. Many people seem to think this is unjust. I don't necessarily disagree, but there's no need to go around the internet attacking the messengers. If you don't like how the laws work, write your legislators.

srtjstjsj 10y ago
By your reasoning, there certainly is a need to go around attacking the messengers. The messengers can file a lawsuit later if they disagree.