[otterley]

> Indeed. You're arguing that the mere act of buying is and of itself a representation, which is erroneous.

It's not the purchase that is the representation. It is the communication that you want to fly to a particular city by placing it in the destination field or by telling it to the ticket agent.

I'm tired of arguing this to amateurs; take it to a judge and try it yourself. I'll bring the popcorn.

[Someone1234]

> It is the communication that you want to fly to a particular city by placing it in the destination field or by telling it to the ticket agent.

By that logic even searching for tickets without purchasing them could be argued as "fraud." Since even putting something in the destination field is, according to your argument, a material representation of intent. None of this holds up.

> I'm tired of arguing this to amateurs

Please review the Hacker News Guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[otterley]

> By that logic even searching for tickets without purchasing them could be argued as "fraud." Since even putting something in the destination field is, according to your argument, a material representation of intent.

If you search for tickets with no intent to purchase, it's plausibly an element of fraud, but it's not fraud. The additional elements (reliance and detriment) aren't met yet. Once the purchase is complete and the rest of the events occur (i.e. intentionally abandoning travel), then all the remaining elements are fulfilled and a plausible fraud claim can commence.

[lsaferite]

Out of curiosity, how do you see the element of detriment being argued? The passenger paid for a seat. The airline will absolutely assign that seat to a standby passenger when they miss boarding. Even if they don't, the seat is paid and less passengers means less feel burn. In both cases the airline makes out better. Is the argument going to be that the airline would have charged you more had you told them you only needed the first leg and by extension you robbed them of a chance to squeeze you harder?

[CogitoCogito]

> I'm tired of arguing this to amateurs; take it to a judge and try it yourself. I'll bring the popcorn.

I've upvoted your comments in this thread because they're interesting, but you don't seem to be providing many references yourself so I'm not so sure why you are demanding references of others. (You did reference the "I agree" button below, but I don't see how that implies fraud in this case.)

The question of fraud aside, my main question is what the actual financial harm is to United. It's not like they can say here's the price you would have gotten by going A -> B -> C and here's the price for A -> B, therefore you owe us the difference because there is no single price to refer to in the first place. All the different prices vary across the board at different times for different people for the same service. Also is there any real harm? Is taking the A -> B -> C route and hopping off at B causing them a financial loss?

[otterley]

The main point of contention here is what representation is being made when a customer tells United what origin and destination airport they want a ticket for, and whether the customer is intentionally misrepresenting their true intent by specifying a different destination airport than the one they actually intend to fly to. The fact that there’s even an argument here that no misrepresentation is being made, in light of my legal training and experience, I find pretty ludicrous.

It’s well known in contract law that the terms of a contract are determined objectively, as a hypothetical reasonable person would interpret them, not subjectively. Courts are understandably loath to try to divine the actual intent of the parties. See, e.g., Winograd v. Am. Broad. Co., 68 Cal. App. 4th 624, 632 (1998)).

I’m sure United can figure out what the price difference would have been under the particular circumstances of the case. If not, a court will make a determination of damages based on the facts provided by the parties.