Did United Airlines have any other choice than to eject that passenger?

[RavenSky]

Wrong.

Contract of Carriage is between United and the passenger, even if the passenger isn't even aware of it. That, in fact, was one of the issues addressed in the DOT report.

The IDB rules are between the DOT and the airlines.

Contract of Carriage is between the airline and the passenger

 

[coloradoatheist]

The IDB rules are between the DOT and the airlines.

Contract of Carriage is between the airline and the passenger

I agree with you there. We just disagree whether it applies to property rights or just contractual rights.

 

[coloradoatheist]

They looked at federal rules and statutes. That means they looked at whether United's actions complied with 14 CFR Part 250. One of the points of contention is the lack of an explicit definition of the term 'boarded".

Typically in law when there is no explicit definition made the plain language meaning of the word is assumed. Most people will think that once they got on the plane and sat down they are "boarded". There is no reason to believe that the word means anything other than that. If they wanted it to mean something different then they needed to define it in their contract.

I agree in principle. But the difference normally would come down to whether one party breaches a contract or not. But in this case United admits breaching the contracting and having to pay the normal penalty for making that type of breach, which is paying four times the fare. While it's possible, I would say it's possible but it would be hard for the party to show that they penalty the airlines had to pay to the person is materially significant difference from inside or outside the plane.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The IDB rules are between the DOT and the airlines.

Nobody cares - nobody was denied boarding in this case, voluntarily or otherwise.

Your red herring isn't getting better with age.

The DOT says it was an IDB. They're the ones who make the rules. I'm inclined to believe their statement of what happened.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The IDB rules are between the DOT and the airlines.

Contract of Carriage is between the airline and the passenger

The question is whether it's an IDB. That's something that the DOT decides. The Contract of Carriage permits IDB.

- - - Updated - - -

Typically in law when there is no explicit definition made the plain language meaning of the word is assumed. Most people will think that once they got on the plane and sat down they are "boarded". There is no reason to believe that the word means anything other than that. If they wanted it to mean something different then they needed to define it in their contract.

I agree in principle. But the difference normally would come down to whether one party breaches a contract or not. But in this case United admits breaching the contracting and having to pay the normal penalty for making that type of breach, which is paying four times the fare. While it's possible, I would say it's possible but it would be hard for the party to show that they penalty the airlines had to pay to the person is materially significant difference from inside or outside the plane.

Exactly. We have a contract with a defined penalty. That penalty was triggered. End of story.

 

[RavenSky]

Contract of Carriage is between the airline and the passenger

I agree with you there. We just disagree whether it applies to property rights or just contractual rights.

Correct. You keep using "property right" analogies, so I keep correcting your analogies. You also keep insisting that it has something to do with "license" and I keep pointing out that you are wrong.

 

[bilby]

Contract of Carriage is between the airline and the passenger

The question is whether it's an IDB. That's something that the DOT decides. The Contract of Carriage permits IDB.

- - - Updated - - -

Typically in law when there is no explicit definition made the plain language meaning of the word is assumed. Most people will think that once they got on the plane and sat down they are "boarded". There is no reason to believe that the word means anything other than that. If they wanted it to mean something different then they needed to define it in their contract.

I agree in principle. But the difference normally would come down to whether one party breaches a contract or not. But in this case United admits breaching the contracting and having to pay the normal penalty for making that type of breach, which is paying four times the fare. While it's possible, I would say it's possible but it would be hard for the party to show that they penalty the airlines had to pay to the person is materially significant difference from inside or outside the plane.

Exactly. We have a contract with a defined penalty. That penalty was triggered. End of story.

So if I agree to sell you a beer for $1, and that if I don't deliver it to you by 5pm, I will give you $5 in compensation, then under the terms of that contract, I can punch you in the face just after I hand it to you, take back the beer, and pay you $5, and that's the end of the story.

I doubt that the law agrees with this assessment of my behaviour in breaching that contract. Even if the liquor licensing board issued a statement saying that 5x value compensation for failure to deliver is in keeping with their rules.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The question is whether it's an IDB. That's something that the DOT decides. The Contract of Carriage permits IDB.

- - - Updated - - -

Typically in law when there is no explicit definition made the plain language meaning of the word is assumed. Most people will think that once they got on the plane and sat down they are "boarded". There is no reason to believe that the word means anything other than that. If they wanted it to mean something different then they needed to define it in their contract.

I agree in principle. But the difference normally would come down to whether one party breaches a contract or not. But in this case United admits breaching the contracting and having to pay the normal penalty for making that type of breach, which is paying four times the fare. While it's possible, I would say it's possible but it would be hard for the party to show that they penalty the airlines had to pay to the person is materially significant difference from inside or outside the plane.

Exactly. We have a contract with a defined penalty. That penalty was triggered. End of story.

So if I agree to sell you a beer for $1, and that if I don't deliver it to you by 5pm, I will give you $5 in compensation, then under the terms of that contract, I can punch you in the face just after I hand it to you, take back the beer, and pay you $5, and that's the end of the story.

I doubt that the law agrees with this assessment of my behaviour in breaching that contract. Even if the liquor licensing board issued a statement saying that 5x value compensation for failure to deliver is in keeping with their rules.

You can't do that, so yes that would be assault. However if I ask you to babysit my kids and you come over to my house but I change my mind about you babysitting and I say leave and you don't and I call the cops and they come over and ask you to leave but you don't, they can use a certain amount of force you to leave my house. I may have to pay you for the hour of babsitting you did, but I can still ask you to leave my house.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with you there. We just disagree whether it applies to property rights or just contractual rights.

Correct. You keep using "property right" analogies, so I keep correcting your analogies. You also keep insisting that it has something to do with "license" and I keep pointing out that you are wrong.

Yes and just repeating that I am wrong doesn't make your case. A license is permission to do something on a property that would otherwise be trespassing. A lease has another meeting. We think of licenses as applying to intellectual property, but it also applies to real property.

 

[RavenSky]

So if I agree to sell you a beer for $1, and that if I don't deliver it to you by 5pm, I will give you $5 in compensation, then under the terms of that contract, I can punch you in the face just after I hand it to you, take back the beer, and pay you $5, and that's the end of the story.

I doubt that the law agrees with this assessment of my behaviour in breaching that contract. Even if the liquor licensing board issued a statement saying that 5x value compensation for failure to deliver is in keeping with their rules.

You can't do that, so yes that would be assault. However if I ask you to babysit my kids and you come over to my house but I change my mind about you babysitting and I say leave and you don't and I call the cops and they come over and ask you to leave but you don't, they can use a certain amount of force you to leave my house. I may have to pay you for the hour of babsitting you did, but I can still ask you to leave my house.

You REALLY have a bad time with analogies, don't you?

This is another one from you with zero resemblance to the case at hand

United did not hire Dr. Dao to do a job on board the airplane. United did, however, cause Dr. Dao to be violently attacked after they gave him the seat he paid for and then they tried to take it back.

A license is permission to do something on a property that would otherwise be trespassing. A lease has another meeting. We think of licenses as applying to intellectual property, but it also applies to real property.

Wrong. Purchasing a seat on an airplane is not and never will be anything like a "license" no matter how many times you assert (with zero evidence) that it is. YOU continuing to repeat that it is doesn't make your case.

 

[coloradoatheist]

There aren't too many analogies that are similar to contain all the details. Bilby's analogy left out the part about being on someone else's property who asked them to leave and then called the cops.

And here is a case about a ticket holder attending a Patriots Football game who tried to sue the team for cheating at the game. They ruled against him because he still attended a football game but they specially mention many times that a football ticket is a license.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1524532.html

 

[DBT]

Renting comes with a set of rights for the renter. The owner of the property cannot accept payment from the renter then evict them prior to fulfilling the terms of the agreement/payment because they happen to have changed their minds and now want to let someone else use it, one of their employees, or whatever.

 

[Arctish]

The following is from the article written by a Associate Dean and Professor of Law at Cornell Law School that I posted less than a week ago:

In some situations, a contractual dispute and a trespassing dispute should be kept separate. Say you hire a painter to paint the inside of your house. You refuse to pay, and so the painter says, “I’m not leaving until you pay me.” When the painter refuses to leave, you call the police and ask them to remove him because he is trespassing. The proper resolution is that the painter must leave but can sue you for breach of contract.

That may be so, but in that case, the painter’s refusal to leave is incidental to the object and purpose of the contract, which is to paint the house, not stay in your house.

In contrast, the object and purpose of the contract of carriage is, among other things, to require the airline to transport the passenger from location A to location B aboard aircraft C. Being on the aircraft is the whole point of the contract, and it specifically lists the situations when the airline may deny transport to a ticketed customer.

The article was first published 5 days after the incident and addresses nearly all of the points that have been raised in this thread.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Renting comes with a set of rights for the renter. The owner of the property cannot accept payment from the renter then evict them prior to fulfilling the terms of the agreement/payment because they happen to have changed their minds and now want to let someone else use it, one of their employees, or whatever.

Correct. Because a renter signs a lease which conveys a vested and exclusive ownership transfer of the property. A license on the other hand is permission to use the property and there is no vested interested in the property. A license can be revoked at will. Hence the argument we are having between the difference of a lease and a license.

 

[DBT]

Renting comes with a set of rights for the renter. The owner of the property cannot accept payment from the renter then evict them prior to fulfilling the terms of the agreement/payment because they happen to have changed their minds and now want to let someone else use it, one of their employees, or whatever.

Correct. Because a renter signs a lease which conveys a vested and exclusive ownership transfer of the property. A license on the other hand is permission to use the property and there is no vested interested in the property. A license can be revoked at will. Hence the argument we are having between the difference of a lease and a license.

If the latter is the case, customers can be treated with contempt. Removed from a seat they have paid for and occupy at the whim of the owner. Which, if put into practice would result in a very disgruntled customer base. If that is the law of license, the law is an Ass.

 

[zorq]

Of course, the contract in question is neither a lease nor a licence, but is in actuality a contract of carriage. Which, of course, is a binding civil contract.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Correct. Because a renter signs a lease which conveys a vested and exclusive ownership transfer of the property. A license on the other hand is permission to use the property and there is no vested interested in the property. A license can be revoked at will. Hence the argument we are having between the difference of a lease and a license.

If the latter is the case, customers can be treated with contempt. Removed from a seat they have paid for and occupy at the whim of the owner. Which, if put into practice would result in a very disgruntled customer base. If that is the law of license, the law is an Ass.

Why? It's the way it has been and it's just not very important 99.999999999999% of the time because businesses don't want to piss customers off, they solve the airlines problems by using queuing instead where the airline can't, and most business models aren't as complex as the airline industry.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, the contract in question is neither a lease nor a licence, but is in actuality a contract of carriage. Which, of course, is a binding civil contract.

It's both. YOu can have a license without a contract, a contract without a license, and one that serves as both. The issue is that you can breach a contract and then you pay for the breach of that contract. In the case of the airline breaching it's contract to deliver you to a city, they are required to give you cash for four times your fare. In most cases where a contract is broke, all that's required is the original amount to be refunded.

 

[RavenSky]

There aren't too many analogies that are similar to contain all the details. Bilby's analogy left out the part about being on someone else's property who asked them to leave and then called the cops.

And yours added a bunch of crap about babysitters that made your analogy completely inapplicable.

Shall we discuss the more accurate analogy yet again? A property owner cannot take payment for, and allow occupancy of, their property and then change their mind after the fact and declare the renter to be "trespassing". As for calling the police, any real police officer will tell said property owner exactly what this police officer said about the United case:

“I don't know the policy of Chicago PD or the State of Illinois, but it was a business dispute. Our procedure seeks to keep the peace, and that’s pretty much it," the officer said. "The only time I would allow officers to remove someone from an aircraft forcefully is if a crime has been committed. Other than that they paid for the seat and it’s a civil matter."

"Airlines have been trying to get us to remove passengers all the time for different reasons, and I have to explain to them we are not their bouncers. Our job is to keep the peace. I have been beefed (complained about) by airlines for not removing passengers, but luckily my management has backed me. The question then arises that the airline can claim that the person is trespassing, but that doesn't hold water because the airline was paid for the seat which still makes it a civil matter.”

And here is a case about a ticket holder attending a Patriots Football game who tried to sue the team for cheating at the game. They ruled against him because he still attended a football game but they specially mention many times that a football ticket is a license.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1524532.html

Inaccurate. Although the case you cite does discuss "license" and "ticket", a personal seat license is something completely separate from the game ticket:

 A personal seat license, or PSL, is a paid license that entitles the holder to the right to buy season tickets for a certain seat in a stadium.

In general a "personal seat license" for a sports stadium is not the actual game ticket(s)

You must purchase a PSL before you will have the opportunity to buy season tickets for the Las Vegas Raiders... A PSL does not just grant you the right to purchase tickets — it obligates you to buy season seats every year.

In any case, commercial airplanes do not have "personal seat licenses". They have a "contract of carriage".

 

[RavenSky]

Renting comes with a set of rights for the renter. The owner of the property cannot accept payment from the renter then evict them prior to fulfilling the terms of the agreement/payment because they happen to have changed their minds and now want to let someone else use it, one of their employees, or whatever.

Correct. Because a renter signs a lease which conveys a vested and exclusive ownership transfer of the property. A license on the other hand is permission to use the property and there is no vested interested in the property. A license can be revoked at will. Hence the argument we are having between the difference of a lease and a license.

Wrong.

A "renter" does not necessarily have to sign a "lease"; nor does a "lease" convey "ownership" of the property. Furthermore, a "license" is NOT "permission to use the property"; and in almost all genuine "license" agreements said "license" cannot be unilaterally revoked without cause anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, the contract in question is neither a lease nor a licence, but is in actuality a contract of carriage. Which, of course, is a binding civil contract.

Correct.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So if I agree to sell you a beer for $1, and that if I don't deliver it to you by 5pm, I will give you $5 in compensation, then under the terms of that contract, I can punch you in the face just after I hand it to you, take back the beer, and pay you $5, and that's the end of the story.

I doubt that the law agrees with this assessment of my behaviour in breaching that contract. Even if the liquor licensing board issued a statement saying that 5x value compensation for failure to deliver is in keeping with their rules.

Except nobody punched him in the face.

 

[bilby]

So if I agree to sell you a beer for $1, and that if I don't deliver it to you by 5pm, I will give you $5 in compensation, then under the terms of that contract, I can punch you in the face just after I hand it to you, take back the beer, and pay you $5, and that's the end of the story.

I doubt that the law agrees with this assessment of my behaviour in breaching that contract. Even if the liquor licensing board issued a statement saying that 5x value compensation for failure to deliver is in keeping with their rules.

Except nobody punched him in the face.

Yes, because that's the important element of the analogy, and the whole effect would be ruined if I had said "...I can use physical force to take back the beer...".

Oh, wait, that doesn't change a thing. The details of the assault would appear to be completely fucking irrelevant. All that matters is that he was assaulted. Something you seem to think was perfectly acceptable, because standing up to bullies is absolutely prohibited if those bullies happen to be wearing uniforms.

Standing up to bullies in uniforms would, it seems, be detrimental to our freedom.