A Lurker, you said "I have simply stated what my contract says and how the CA's are intrinsically interwoven into my contract".
But in actual fact you subsequently reiterated it and added your own comment "by agreement".
The mere fact that you had to do so, when quoting a legal contract, should make you think why you had to add it to reinforce your argument, surely?
I would think that this is where the legal arguments in court may commence, if BA have had you sign a document that says simply "can be amended from time to time." (Note the full stop).
This surely is vastly different to what it would mean if it actually was followed with "by agreement", or even "only by agreement".
Much as it would if it was followed by "whenever the company deems it appropriate to do so".
But I suspect that without that suffix, a decent legal eagle could argue that BA, with this statement, gave itself the right to amend when necessary, because as I see it that one phrase implies no legal obligation on their part to "agree" anything with anybody. Moral obligations don't really count in court. do they?
Do you see this is being the crux of the legal argument?
I assume when this case comes to court we should have no trouble finding out.
However, if it is on this that BASSA are betting their shirts, then as an outsider it seems to me to be one hell of a gamble.
Regards,
D