jimmywu97 wrote:
.自己權益要爭取,大公司不會自動給的(恕刪)
對啊，就是這樣沒錯
所以陶醫師在飛機上已經爭取自己的權益拒絕下機
可是有人栽贓說他這個叫做霸機，叫做跟航警僵持害飛機延誤三小時
個人積分：1727分
文章編號：64004877
個人積分：56分
文章編號：64004906
個人積分：33分
文章編號：64004911
個人積分：1727分
文章編號：64005029
個人積分：37分
文章編號：64005167
thron wrote:
1.這次是組員要插隊,不適用超賣條款
2.條約是"denied boarding",今天是aboard的乘客被拖下去.denied boarding是拒絕乘客登機,那是check in就要擋.
（恕刪)
我不是律師也不是聯航代表，相信各位鄉民也不是美國執業律師，所以不必一副專家態度。
Denied boarding，沒說是check in就要擋，請不必自我腦補。
舉例，
- who are unable to sit in a single seat with the seat belt properly secured or are unable to put down armrests between seats for an entire flight.
以上狀況沒上機，如何確認？
另外，插隊與否是人在說，條文是說有權依航空公司優先處理。
我個人是消費者也不同意如此作法，但各位並非專家，若是，請代為打官司，保證出名又賺錢。
謝謝指教，not!
個人積分：118分
文章編號：64005215
個人積分：44分
文章編號：64005216
個人積分：12795分
文章編號：64005451
Youshouldreborn wrote:
為了自己能瞭解這事...(恕刪)
Disclaimer: If you have a legal question, please consult an attorney. The following is merely a discussion, not a legal advice.
First of all, you can write whatever you want in a contract. It does not mean 100% of the contract terms will be enforceable. I'll give you an example. This is an appeals court ruling so it is binding on the lower court
Gardner v. Downtown Porsche Audi (1986), 180 Cal.App.3d 713
The question for the court of appeals was
May an automobile repair garage avoid liability for its negligence by having car owners sign a waiver form when they leave their cars with the garage?
Court's answer: No, they cannot
I have seen such clauses still on a standard auto dealer service contract. I was naive back then and asked a law professor directly. I read the case, I understood it, that specific waiver term was not enforceable in court = worthless. How come the dealer still have such a clause in their service agreement that I have to sign? The professor laughed, it's not illegal for them to put it in, and if a customer who is not a lawyer or has not read this case, how do they know it's not enforceable? If they confront the dealer, the dealer can simply point to the contract and the customer might just go away.
Some people already mentioned other types of contract that the courts have invalidated(not sure which court they refer to). Remember, unconscionable, adhesion boilerplate contract could face court challenges and might be unenforceable (it'll be difficult but not impossible)
Also, you need to look up case laws to find what is the definition of 'boarding" as that is certainly a disputed term. If there are no case law on this specific instance, then a lawyer needs to look into contract interpretation. I do not know if Illinois is the strict four corner rule or Corbin approach, nor do I know about the trade usage, customary, etc. in regards to the definition of "boarding". My common sense tells me boarding is you get onto the airplane, which in this case, the passenger has gotten on the airplane and has been seated.
All these contract discussions aside, I hope you can understand why I insist on don't just be a keyboard "lawyer wannabe" as you can forfeit your potential legal rights without knowing. Consult a real attorney, really.
Furthermore, any reasonable 1L worth his/her salt should be able to recognize this incident has a lot of tort claims potential, beyond the contract dispute. Granted, you need to analyze the defenses such as consent, assumption of risks, possible immunity of the officers, etc. Remember the Chicago aviation police has less training than a regular Chicago police officer (from what I read, Aviation police has only 4 months or training, 2 months less than a regular police. Aviation police also do not carry guns)
You can read what I wrote on this thread and another thread. What's going to hurt UA is most likely the punitive damages from the tort claims. The longer the passenger stays in hospital, getting surgery and what not, the more I'm going to be worried as a UA lawyer because I can expect the payout amount to be higher and higher
個人積分：171分
文章編號：64005853
