3 ms·

You're mixing a whole lot of things together here; none of which actually relate to this case. e.g. sticker prices are generally not offers; they're usually co

You're mixing a whole lot of things together here; none of which actually relate to this case. e.g. sticker prices are generally not offers; they're usually construed as "invitations to treat"; in cases involving sale of goods by merchants, the Uniform Commercial Code requires contracts for sales over $500 to be written; you've added a complex agency problem where an employee may be exceeding their delegated authority to sell goods on behalf of the employer; you've introduced an element of unilateral mistake where the selling party may be able to rescind the contract if the buyer had some reason to know the price was wrong Let's take all those out of the equation. If you're a salesperson in a shop, and I ask "how much for that vase?", and you say "$100", and I say "I'll buy that vase for $100." then that looks like a contract. It's the acceptance that creates the contract; not payment. N.B. Cancelation of a mistake fare has nothing to do with a post-sale price increase; because a contract that involves a mistake is rescinded, meaning that it is no longer recognized as binding - the airlines are not asking people to pay more in the context of an existing contract. The doctrine of mistake doesn't apply to the case where you intended to sell for a particular price then realized it was a bad deal for you.

arcticbull 5y ago
> If you're a salesperson in a shop, and I ask "how much for that vase?", and you say "$100", and I say "I'll buy that vase for $100." then that looks like a contract. It's the acceptance that creates the contract; not payment. Is there a single case where any shopkeeper has been held to specific performance? I'm pretty sure if someone says "how much is the vase?" and you respond "$100," they say "I'll take it" and you say, "well, that's what it's worth but I'm not actually ready to part with it..." there's no binding contract to sell. But I'm not a lawyer, and I'm looking forward to a resolution here. > N.B. Cancelation of a mistake fare has nothing to do with a post-sale price increase; because a contract that involves a mistake is rescinded, meaning that it is no longer recognized as binding - the airlines are not asking people to pay more in the context of an existing contract. The doctrine of mistake doesn't apply to the case where you intended to sell for a particular price then realized it was a bad deal for you. This is actually incorrect. The DOT makes it clear that 399.88(a) requires airlines to honor mistake fares. ... if a consumer purchases a fare and that consumer receives confirmation (such as a confirmation email and/or the purchase appears on their credit card statement or online account summary) of their purchase, then the seller of air transportation cannot increase the price of that air transportation to that consumer, even when the fare is a “mistake.” [1] A contract of carriage provision that reserves the right to cancel such ticketed purchases or reserves the right to raise the fare cannot legalize the practice described above. The Enforcement Office would consider any contract of carriage provision that attempts to relieve a carrier of the prohibition against post-purchase price increase to be an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712. However, they stopped holding airlines to that after a few folks took advantage. [1] https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/EAPP_2_FAQ.pdf https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/EAPP...
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  >The DOT makes it clear that 399.88(a) requires airlines to honor mistake fares. No; it doesn't state that at all - it states that it's an unfair or deceptive practice to increase a price for travel involved scheduled air travel after purchase. Airlines are, as a matter of contract law, able to rescind contracts made under mistake. Section 399.88 was originally interpreted by the DOT as creating strict liability for airlines if they refused to honor mistake fares, but that's different from there being a breach of contract. Breach of contract creates a remedy for the consumer; unfair or deceptive trading practices give rise to civil and administrate penalties by the DOT. The fact of the matter is that the confrontation with their regulator and the civil penalties involved are in the "greater of two evils" category for the airlines, so there's commercially speaking no way this would ever come to court. >Is there a single case where any shopkeeper has been held to specific performance? This has nothing to do with specific performance; that's just one remedy for breach of contract. Why are you suddenly talking about remedies?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > This has nothing to do with specific performance; that's just one remedy for breach of contract. Why are you suddenly talking about remedies? I'm mostly curious if this ever made it to court, and that the court decided in favor of the would-be customer.
    - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
      >I'm mostly curious if this ever made it to court, and that the court decided in favor of the would-be customer. There's at least one case I know involving a car dealership; is that close enough?
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Got a link? I'd love to read it.

arcticbull 5y ago

> If you're a salesperson in a shop, and I ask "how much for that vase?", and you say "$100", and I say "I'll buy that vase for $100." then that looks like a contract. It's the acceptance that creates the contract; not payment. Is there a single case where any shopkeeper has been held to specific performance? I'm pretty sure if someone says "how much is the vase?" and you respond "$100," they say "I'll take it" and you say, "well, that's what it's worth but I'm not actually ready to part with it..." there's no binding contract to sell. But I'm not a lawyer, and I'm looking forward to a resolution here. > N.B. Cancelation of a mistake fare has nothing to do with a post-sale price increase; because a contract that involves a mistake is rescinded, meaning that it is no longer recognized as binding - the airlines are not asking people to pay more in the context of an existing contract. The doctrine of mistake doesn't apply to the case where you intended to sell for a particular price then realized it was a bad deal for you. This is actually incorrect. The DOT makes it clear that 399.88(a) requires airlines to honor mistake fares. ... if a consumer purchases a fare and that consumer receives confirmation (such as a confirmation email and/or the purchase appears on their credit card statement or online account summary) of their purchase, then the seller of air transportation cannot increase the price of that air transportation to that consumer, even when the fare is a “mistake.” [1] A contract of carriage provision that reserves the right to cancel such ticketed purchases or reserves the right to raise the fare cannot legalize the practice described above. The Enforcement Office would consider any contract of carriage provision that attempts to relieve a carrier of the prohibition against post-purchase price increase to be an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712. However, they stopped holding airlines to that after a few folks took advantage. [1] https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/EAPP_2_FAQ.pdf https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/EAPP...

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
>The DOT makes it clear that 399.88(a) requires airlines to honor mistake fares. No; it doesn't state that at all - it states that it's an unfair or deceptive practice to increase a price for travel involved scheduled air travel after purchase. Airlines are, as a matter of contract law, able to rescind contracts made under mistake. Section 399.88 was originally interpreted by the DOT as creating strict liability for airlines if they refused to honor mistake fares, but that's different from there being a breach of contract. Breach of contract creates a remedy for the consumer; unfair or deceptive trading practices give rise to civil and administrate penalties by the DOT. The fact of the matter is that the confrontation with their regulator and the civil penalties involved are in the "greater of two evils" category for the airlines, so there's commercially speaking no way this would ever come to court. >Is there a single case where any shopkeeper has been held to specific performance? This has nothing to do with specific performance; that's just one remedy for breach of contract. Why are you suddenly talking about remedies?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > This has nothing to do with specific performance; that's just one remedy for breach of contract. Why are you suddenly talking about remedies? I'm mostly curious if this ever made it to court, and that the court decided in favor of the would-be customer.
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    >I'm mostly curious if this ever made it to court, and that the court decided in favor of the would-be customer. There's at least one case I know involving a car dealership; is that close enough?
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Got a link? I'd love to read it.