4 ms·

My (non-lawyer) understanding is that you are allowed to breach contracts. You have to pay damages for doing it, but you are allowed. According to this Quora an

My (non-lawyer) understanding is that you are allowed to breach contracts. You have to pay damages for doing it, but you are allowed. According to this Quora answer by a lawyer: https://www.quora.com/How-should-a-breach-of-contract-be-qualified-is-it-illegal-is-it-against-the-law/answer/Ani-Ravi https://www.quora.com/How-should-a-breach-of-contract-be-qua... > The legal system encourages the deliberate breaching of contracts by ensuring that there are no penalties for breach (in fact, if you try to put in a penalty clause in your contract, it won't be enforced) (Note he's not saying you won't have to pay damages; penalties and damages are not the same. Damages = compensation for the wrong you've caused, for example by breaching a contract, penalties = punishment over and above damages) Once United Airlines breached its contract with Dr. Dao and decided he could no longer be on their plane, he was trespassing. They owed him damages for breaching the contract, but that's an issue to be decided in court, not right there and then when the cops where asking him to get off. As far as I am aware, it is not the cops job to arbitrate breach of contract issues. (Again, not a lawyer, and I expect regulations around air travel are more stringent, so it could be more complicated than that. Could be they broke some FAA or DOT or whatever regulation, I really don't know.)

tyingq 10y ago
It's not that simple. Common carriers are subject to more regulation around duty of care, refusal of service, and so forth. Lawyers will have to hash this one out. Though United might settle before we get to the real answer.
- greenshackle2 10y ago
  Right, that's why I added: > (Again, not a lawyer, and I expect regulations around air travel are more stringent, so it could be more complicated than that. Could be they broke some FAA or DOT or whatever regulation, I really don't know.)
- HarryHirsch 10y ago
  Unfortunately, breaking the common carrier rules isn't a crime. The content industry managed to declare movie piracy a crime, wouldn't it be nice if we could bribe Congress into penalizing breaking the common carrier regulations?
  - tyingq 10y ago
    It's not whether breaking common carrier rules are a crime. It's whether United had some legal standing to forcibly eject the passenger. If the regulation limits their ability to refuse service, that kills their legal standing to forcibly eject. Similar for their own "Rule 21" in their contract of carriage, if you view this as "refusal of transport": https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21 https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag... It doesn't meet their own rules. There are aviation lawyers questioning it: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/04/10/united-airlines-removed-flight/ http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/04/10/united-airlines-remove...
    - kelnos 10y ago
      Right, but when you say "it doesn't meet their own rules", we're talking about breach of contract, not whether they have legal standing to eject someone in the context of common carrier. If we're in agreement that United can break their contract (of course with civil liability), then the question is whether or not common carrier rules prohibit that an extra-contract ejection. And even if they do, what's the legal remedy if they try (and succeed) to do it? I mean, the bottom line is that they can of course physically do it.
      - tyingq 10y ago
        I would guess two things... Less potential defense for a civil case from the passenger if they can't claim trespass. They could, for example, be more liable for the injuries even though they did not inflict them directly. Then, if violating some common carrier requirement, also subject to fines. Like the multi million dollar ones doled out for leaving passengers on the tarmac for hours. It may also serve to educate airport police in the future as to how involved they want to get in a contractual dispute.

tyingq 10y ago

It's not that simple. Common carriers are subject to more regulation around duty of care, refusal of service, and so forth. Lawyers will have to hash this one out. Though United might settle before we get to the real answer.

greenshackle2 10y ago
Right, that's why I added: > (Again, not a lawyer, and I expect regulations around air travel are more stringent, so it could be more complicated than that. Could be they broke some FAA or DOT or whatever regulation, I really don't know.)
HarryHirsch 10y ago
Unfortunately, breaking the common carrier rules isn't a crime. The content industry managed to declare movie piracy a crime, wouldn't it be nice if we could bribe Congress into penalizing breaking the common carrier regulations?
- tyingq 10y ago
  It's not whether breaking common carrier rules are a crime. It's whether United had some legal standing to forcibly eject the passenger. If the regulation limits their ability to refuse service, that kills their legal standing to forcibly eject. Similar for their own "Rule 21" in their contract of carriage, if you view this as "refusal of transport": https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21 https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriag... It doesn't meet their own rules. There are aviation lawyers questioning it: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/04/10/united-airlines-removed-flight/ http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/04/10/united-airlines-remove...
  - kelnos 10y ago
    Right, but when you say "it doesn't meet their own rules", we're talking about breach of contract, not whether they have legal standing to eject someone in the context of common carrier. If we're in agreement that United can break their contract (of course with civil liability), then the question is whether or not common carrier rules prohibit that an extra-contract ejection. And even if they do, what's the legal remedy if they try (and succeed) to do it? I mean, the bottom line is that they can of course physically do it.
    - tyingq 10y ago
      I would guess two things... Less potential defense for a civil case from the passenger if they can't claim trespass. They could, for example, be more liable for the injuries even though they did not inflict them directly. Then, if violating some common carrier requirement, also subject to fines. Like the multi million dollar ones doled out for leaving passengers on the tarmac for hours. It may also serve to educate airport police in the future as to how involved they want to get in a contractual dispute.