3 ms·
I think most people have, at some point, chosen between available flights based on layover city. I know I have. So there's a distinct utility offered, separate
by quesera 12y ago
I think most people have, at some point, chosen between available flights based on layover city. I know I have. So there's a distinct utility offered, separate from any missed connections.
It's very hard for me to imagine a contract that includes "once you get on the plane, you must not miss your connecting flight".
Heck, I wish I could get the airlines to say "once you're on the plane, we will make sure your connecting flight doesn't leave without you", but of course that's impractical.
This is just silly.
- jowiar 12y ago> It's very hard for me to imagine a contract that includes "once you get on the plane, you must not miss your connecting flight". Except that it basically says "Thou shalt not buy a ticket with the express intent of missing the connection". http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pdf http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pd... (pg. 11)
- quesera 12y agoVery interesting. Mark that as one point for my lack of imagination. It might be tough to establish that the consumer entered into that contract knowledgeably, but there are a lot of more important terms in that same document -- so the airlines might have some powerful supporters with a vested interest in the validity of those contracts. Still, tortious interference presumes an existing contract, from my expert legal reading of Wikipedia. If a customer enters the contract with a preexisting intention to breach, I am not sure you can accuse the site operator of interference before the fact.