Originally Posted by
Dupre
Having had a look at United's contract of carriage (
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con....aspx?Mobile=1)
Section 25 clearly talks about denial of boarding, but this is irrelevant as the pax was already boarded.
Section 21 deals with refusal of transportation (offloading) but the pax does not meet any of the criteria.
Looks to me like the airline was not following it's own contact of carriage.
How does this affect those saying "it's United's private property and if he refuses to leave he is trespassing"?
A contract is subject to the law, if a Statute or perhaps even common law is inconsistent, the contract is null and void on the point involved. Many here are relying on this Conditions of Carriage as though it's the only legal document or constitutes the entire extent of juris prudence within the United States. I'll say it again for those who haven't noticed it the first 10 times, I think what UA did was deplorable and unforgiveable. Multiple situations in my career I've seen a similar circumstance and never has this sort of treatment been metered out, even when people were intoxicated and potentially violent. But, no one on here is a lawyer and neither am I but I have friends who are lawyers and just because something is in a contract or not in a contract, especially when it's not, it defaults to statute or common law... I'm not saying the airline was right, I'm not saying the pax was wrong, I'm just saying a contract, even conditions of carriage are not set in stone or read legally in isolation, they are subject to scrutiny just like any other legal matter. I've had several contracts that strictly laid down that if I left the employ of the organisation for any reason I was barred from working in a similar capacity or in one case, for another airline altogether. I signed those contracts but legal advice was to ignore the clause because if I got offered another job at higher pay, the provision in that contract is totally unenforceable by law. It is restraint of trade and illegal. The only time it is enforceable is if the employer pays the employee for the time period specified. That's not a CoC but the principle is the same, things written in CoC cannot conceivably cover every single circumstance. It may well turn out that the suit filed against UA is successful and the pax is awarded damages based on the injuries and method of removal being judged as excessive but the court may find the removal was within the rights of the carrier... I am not a lawyer but I do know that a contract isn't always worth the paper it's written on and just because you can all search the web and find the conditions of carriage doesn't make it a fait acompli. Comparing this to cars and mortgages and buying tvs is just twaddle as they are quite distinct and different things.
I am not entirely sure on this point but I don't think the contract is completed when the pax is boarded. I think the legal term would be that the contract is 'on foot' and is not completed until the services paid for have been delivered - i.e. an airline flight is not something that is delivered like other goods, it's delivered over stages and may be interrupted. Whether this interruption was justified I'll leave to the lawyers to determine but knowing the US, where for example, people have sued department stores for injury from falling over in cases even where they have tripped over their own child and still got compensation I'm not confident the ruling will be in anyway in accord with reality. Let's not forget, this is a country that didn't have the technical ability to determine between two people with similar names on a no fly list so hundreds or thousands of Americans were denied travel when it was someone else with the same name on the list and the government after 9/11 couldn't fix it for years.