[Someone1234]

> Do you have a legal citation for this? I'm unaware of any law that supports this assertion.

One could argue the same about every post you've made on this topic thus far. You're arguing that simply the act of buying something is a representation, which can then result in misrespections ala fraud, but you've provided no legal citations and the one citation you have provided was about contractual agreements which aren't in scope here.

[otterley]

The reason I'm not citing anything is because there's nothing to cite. The (mis)representation in this case is crystal clear: "I want to fly to city B."

[johnm1019]

I completely disagree it's crystal clear.

How does buying something indicate your intent, wants, or wishes? If I buy a can of spray-paint, the store has no idea if I am using it to paint my child's bicycle, tag graffiti, use it as a weapon and hit someone on the head, or as part of a wonderful "Rube Goldberg" device which at the end an implement hits the sprayhead which sprays through a bright white light as part of performance art.

Another example, a true story: yesterday I visited an ice cream store with my friend. She wanted a scoop with chocolate sauce, and I wanted just a scoop. 1 scoop was 4.29+tax. A 3 scoop sundae with chocolate, nuts, and strawberry-sauce was 7.98+tax. Even though we only wanted 2 scoops we got the sundae because it was cheaper and scooped the strawberry-sauce off and into the trash (crazy I know, we don't like it). Did we defraud the ice cream store?

People buy "more than they need" all the time, and purchasing a good provides no intent as to what one wants or how they wish to use it.

[otterley]

Facts and circumstances matter; not every case is comparable. In the specific case of buying airplane tickets, it’s reasonable for a carrier to infer intent to travel to a particular destination from the user’s input.

[lordlimecat]

>How does buying something indicate your intent, wants, or wishes?

Because when you buy a united ticket you agree to a contract of carriage that specifically says you will use the ticket in its entirety.

[cft]

Note that this contract is not a law: i would be surprised if it stood in court. According to it, if I feel sick and terminate my flight at the stopover, of if I learn of a business emergency and I have to go back, I am still in breach of this ridiculous contract?

And what makes it most ridiculous is this: "Any practice that United believes, in its sole discretion, is exploitative, abusive or that manipulates/bypasses/overrides United’s fare and ticket rules."

Can they ban me from United- yes. Can they try to collect money and threaten me with a credit dent? They can, until they ran into a lawyer or into a motivated person with time and resources on their hands.

[lordlimecat]

Contracts have to be argued in court, but you're going to have a tough time arguing that case on a contract whose terms you intended to breach even as you agreed to them.

[otterley]

Impossibility is a defense to a breach of contract. And let’s not be silly; United’s not going to go after you for unintentional breach due to illness. Come on, use some common sense.

[CaptainZapp]

Are you arguing that buying a return ticket even though you need a (much more expensive) one way ticket and then not using the return segment is fraud?

Apart from proving that you intentionally bought a return flight best of luck defining this as fraud in front of a judge.

[dragonwriter]

That's why there's a decent case for a breach of contract claim (subject to all the concerns that usually apply with contracts of adhesion.)

But the language of a contract of adhesion doesn't seem likely to be taken as a representation by the non-drafting party in a fraud case.

[bfdm]

I don't want to fly anywhere. I want to buy a plane ticket with my name on it good for travel to B if I decide I want to do that later.

[otterley]

The law doesn’t care about your subjective intent; it will be interpreted objectively, according to the facts and circumstances that can be observed externally of the interaction between you and the carrier. This is a basic tenet of contract law.