EBookers refuses to honour flight - help please

P. Breathnach

drkpower wrote: »

... The question becomes what does 'available' mean? That is not entirely clear from what you posted (but perhaps there are more clauses in the t&cs which clarify). If ebookers are only allocated a certain number of flights with BMI, perhaps even though the flight may be available, it may not be available to e-bookers....

You are inviting people to accept an implausible scenario. The flight exists; there is availability; it is difficult to imagine that BMI would refuse to sell a seat to Ebookers for one of its customers.

The possibility that BMI might want to charge more than Ebookers might get from its customer is not material.

drkpower

ResearchWill wrote: »

Where did I say any term in their t&c's was unfair, I gave examples of what could be unfair terms if they existed I never said they did..

Sure, Im just asking what specific term in this specific case is an unfair term. I dont think we have enough information to make that assessment. Insofar as the OP tells us anything, it appears that ebookers are claiming that the cancellation is beyond their control, which, if true, would mean they have given him what they are obliged to give him (a full refund). Although, again from what the OP says, it appears there is some doubt (on the part of the OP anyway) as to whether ebookers are telling porkies on that..

ResearchWill wrote: »

In relation to available flights, the Contra proferentem rule would apply, this simply says that a contract if it has two possible meanings the meaning in favor of the person who did not draft the contract must be preferred. In this case the flight is available if ebookers meant to say available to us they should have put that in, so standard interpretation rules apply ordinary meaning, the flight is available simple.

Contra proferentem only applies if a court determines the term (ie. the word 'available') to be ambiguous. I doubt that strongly. If 'available' was interpreted as widely as you suggest (ie. if ebookers can possibly procure the flight by any means, they must), ebookers would be obliged to procure a flight by any means theoretically 'available'. That would include chartering a private jet for the OP, which would be 'available' to them by your rationale. The only reasonably construction of 'available' is 'reasonably available to ebookers'.

But, in any case, as I said, it appears ebookers are maintaining that the cancellation was beyond their control which narrows significantly the remedies they must provide to theOP.

drkpower

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You are inviting people to accept an implausible scenario. The flight exists; there is availability; it is difficult to imagine that BMI would refuse to sell a seat to Ebookers for one of its customers..

The reality is that we dont know. I dont know what the nature of the BMI-ebookers contract is. It may be that BMI only hold x numbers of flights for e-bookers (and y and z flights for a number of other ebookers-style search engines) and now there are no such flights available to ebookers anymore.

Without knowing these details, the suggestions that the OP has a case against e-bookers, or that the term is unfair, is reallly just speculation. That is about the sum total of the point I am making.

I have been through this type of dispute (succesfully:)) with a TO before, and what that experience tells me is that it is very difficult to suceed in these cases and that each very much depends on its own facts.

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

Sure, Im just asking what specific term in this specific case is an unfair term. I dont think we have enough information to make that assessment. Insofar as the OP tells us anything, it appears that ebookers are claiming that the cancellation is beyond their control, which, if true, would mean they have given him what they are obliged to give him (a full refund). Although, again from what the OP says, it appears there is some doubt (on the part of the OP anyway) as to whether ebookers are telling porkies on that..



Contra proferentem only applies if a court determines the term (ie. the word 'available') to be ambiguous. I doubt that strongly. If 'available' was interpreted as widely as you suggest (ie. if ebookers can possibly procure the flight by any means, they must), ebookers would be obliged to procure a flight by any means theoretically 'available'. That would include chartering a private jet for the OP, which would be 'available' to them by your rationale. The only reasonably construction of 'available' is 'reasonably available to ebookers'.

But, in any case, as I said, it appears ebookers are maintaining that the cancellation was beyond their control which narrows significantly the remedies they must provide to theOP.

Again you are missing the very basics of contract law ebookers made the booking, no one is talking about flying the OP by private jet, in this case and only this case the flight the OP booked is flying, we know this how the OP has told us, we also no that there are seats, how do we know the OP has told us. So how is that flight unavailable. I am only saying available is that the flight is flying with available seats how is that in any way a broad definition of available. I really would love to read my posts as you read them because either I'm as thick as bat crap or your reading someone else's posts.


I again quote what I said "In relation to available flights, the Contra proferentem rule would apply, this simply says that a contract if it has two possible meanings the meaning in favor of the person who did not draft the contract must be preferred. In this case the flight is available if ebookers meant to say available to us they should have put that in, so standard interpretation rules apply ordinary meaning, the flight is available simple."

You had stated that available could mean available to ebookers from BMI through some imaginary contract, I simply answered your issue by using the above, how was what I said a broad interpretation of available.
The issue is not any possible contract ebookers has with BMI it is the very real contract they have with the OP.

As an aside and not related to this case it could be possible that a travel agent is liable to pay for a private hire of a jet in certain circumstances, but that is not necessary here. I repeat again the flight and seats are available, the OP will now have to pay more, unless he had not in fact made a contract, but as long as he has he is entitled to damages. If someone can show me that the OP did not enter into a contract then he has nothing to stand on, if he has as I believe he has he is entitled to the flight as booked.

BTW just to be very clear I never said any term in this contract was unfair, I just gave examples if what could be considered unfair terms if ebookers tried to claim such terms.

drkpower

ResearchWill wrote: »

Again you are missing the very basics of contract law ebookers made the booking, no one is talking about flying the OP by private jet, in this case and only this case the flight the OP booked is flying, we know this how the OP has told us, we also no that there are seats, how do we know the OP has told us. So how is that flight unavailable. I am only saying available is that the flight is flying with available seats how is that in any way a broad definition of available.

It may be unavailable to e-bookers (perhaps on the rationale I posted in respnse to P. Breathnach).

ResearchWill wrote: »

You had stated that available could mean available to ebookers from BMI through some imaginary contract, I simply answered your issue by using the above, how was what I said a broad interpretation of available..

You dont think BMI have a contact with e-bookers?!

In any case, the OP has also told us that ebookers are claiming that the cancellation is beyond their control, which, if true, would mean they have given him what they are obliged to give him (a full refund).

ResearchWill wrote: »

BTW just to be very clear I never said any term in this contract was unfair, I just gave examples if what could be considered unfair terms if ebookers tried to claim such terms.

Sure, I get that, as I already said.

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

It may be unavailable to e-bookers (perhaps on the rationale I posted in respnse to P. Breathnach).


You dont think BMI have a contact with e-bookers?!

In any case, the OP has also told us that ebookers are claiming that the cancellation is beyond their control, which, if true, would mean they have given him what they are obliged to give him (a full refund).

Sure, I get that, as I already said.

How can it not be available to ebookers, it is available just at a more expensive price, BMI could not refuse to sell a full priced ticket to ebookers, as to do so would be anticompetitive.

I never said they did not have a contract with ebookers, maybe to make myself clearer "imaginary terms of contract between ebookers and BMI" but again I can see no term allowing BMI to refuse to sell flights to ebookers that are available to the public and other agents.

Again why is the cancelation beyond ebookers control I have heard noting in this thread that would amount to beyond their control.

To be Lear if there is no contract then ebookers just refund money that's it. But their is a problem with that, ebookers by later action admitted contract they wanted to deduct cancelation money thereby admitting contract.

Once contract exists ebookers must satisfy it unless it is impossible to do so. I can see no evidence it is impossible.

drkpower

There is no doubt that there is a contract. The question is what the terms of that contract mean.

ResearchWill wrote: »

How can it not be available to ebookers, it is available just at a more expensive price, BMI could not refuse to sell a full priced ticket to ebookers, as to do so would be anticompetitive. .

Do we know if it is available to ebookers (from BMI) at a more expensive price? How do you know this?

ResearchWill wrote: »

Again why is the cancelation beyond ebookers control I have heard noting in this thread that would amount to beyond their control. .

That is what they told the OP. In such circumstances, the OP needs to find out why e-bookers claim this. If ebookers are correct in their assertion, they have fulfilled their contract with the OP (by offering a refund).

ResearchWill wrote: »

Once contract exists ebookers must satisfy it unless it is impossible to do so. I can see no evidence it is impossible.

If the cancellation was beyond their control, they have fulfilled the contract (by offering a refund).
If the cancellation was beyond their control (which is not what ebookers are asserting), the question becomes 'what does 'available' mean'? If 'available' means 'reasonably available to ebookers', and if BMI have no more flights to offer e-bookers, they may well be able to argue succesfully that there are no flights available, and that they have satisfied the contract by giving a refund.

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

There is no doubt that there is a contract. The question is what the terms of that contract mean.


Do we know if it is available to ebookers at a more expensive price? How do you know this?


That is what they told the OP. In such circumstances, the OP needs to find out why e-bookers claim this. If ebookers are correct in their assertion, they have fulfilled their contract with the OP (by offering a refund).


If the cancellation was beyond their control, they have fulfilled the contract (by offering a refund).
If the cancellation was beyond their control, the question becomes 'what does 'available' mean'? If 'available' means 'reasonably available to ebookers', and if BMI have no more flights to offer e-bookers, they may well be able to argue succesfully that there are no flights available, and that they have satisfied the contract by giving a refund.

If it is available to the OP at a more expensive price it must be available to ebookers to buy at that price. We are going around in circles you will not accept that the flight is available. I can think of no legal way BMI could refuse to sell ebookers flights that are available to the general public. It is true that some airlines do not sell through TA but in this case we know that ebookers sells BMI tickets.

drkpower

ResearchWill wrote: »

I can think of no legal way BMI could refuse to sell ebookers flights that are available to the general public.

Because they have a contract with ebookers to hold y number of flights for them (and they are all gone) and they have a contract with other operators to hold x number of flights (ie. the rest) for them?

But in any case, if, as ebookers assert, the cancellation was beyond ebookers control, ebookers dont have to offer the OP anything more than a full refund, which they have done.

That is why the OP needs to find out why it is ebookers claim that the cancellation was beyond their control. Until the OP finds that out, all other speculation is semi-pointless.

drkpower

Just had a glance at the ebookers t&cs. Seems that the OPs contract may not even be with ebookers. This is what I meant about needing to read the contract .....

6. GENERAL BOOKING TERMS AND CONDITIONS<H3>a) Your contract</H3>Your contract will either be with ebookers.ie Limited (“ebookers.ie”) whose registered (Postal) address is at First Floor, Block 7, Irish Life Centre, Lower Abbey Street, Dublin 1, Ireland or another Supplier (such as airlines – including low cost carriers, hotels, insurance and car rental companies) depending on what travel product/s or service/s you book.
If your booking is not a package or accommodation which we sell as principal, ebookers.ie will make the booking on your behalf as a booking agent for the relevant Supplier(s) concerned and your contract will be subject to the relevant supplier's terms and conditions which could limit or exclude liability to you (often in accordance with various applicable international conventions).

ch750536

That changes nothing, they have a contract with ebookers.

castie

From recent experience I think ebookers are in trouble or have some serious issues.

Before if you searched for a flight on ebookers/expedia/webjet you got similar prices.

Now on ebookers you only get expensive looking KLM and Air France flights for trips to Hong Kong. (2k sterling one way)
expedia have a one way on same date for 771 USD.

MRRR2012

Bumping this thread after a few months with good news. We followed up on this via the small claim process and E-Bookers (in their usual style) did not respond within the allowed time frame and as a result they will have to pay the amount we requested (difference between price of the initial booking and what we ended up paying for the new flight and some extra for phone calls/time wasting, etc)....ironic the way it ended, their lack of responsiveness backfired this time and for once they end up paying for it.

P. Breathnach

MRRR2012 wrote: »

Bumping this thread after a few months with good news. We followed up on this via the small claim process and E-Bookers (in their usual style) did not respond within the allowed time frame and as a result they will have to pay the amount we requested (difference between price of the initial booking and what we ended up paying for the new flight and some extra for phone calls/time wasting, etc)....ironic the way it ended, their lack of responsiveness backfired this time and for once they end up paying for it.

Good for you (and please allow me to feel smug because the outcome was consistent with what I said in the discussion of the problem).

Let's hope that their lack of responsiveness does not extend to ignoring the order of the SCC.

MRRR2012

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Good for you (and please allow me to feel smug because the outcome was consistent with what I said in the discussion of the problem).

Let's hope that their lack of responsiveness does not extend to ignoring the order of the SCC.

they actually contacted me yesterday confirming that they will be making the payment to me...deep inside I am still curios on whether or not i would have won the claim had they responded, this was never really clarified...but I guess I am happy to take this

Africa

Good to hear. Thanks for getting back to us all!

P. Breathnach

MRRR2012 wrote: »

they actually contacted me yesterday confirming that they will be making the payment to me...deep inside I am still curios on whether or not i would have won the claim had they responded, this was never really clarified...but I guess I am happy to take this

I have been wondering why ebookers have taken this line.

As I see it:
1. They failed to honour a contract with you;
2. They took the line that refunding your money was a sufficient remedy;
3. You "went legal" and went for a remedy that you thought more appropriate;
4. They dragged their feet, but effectively conceded your case by failing to oppose it in court;
5. They seem willing to pay the compensation ordered.

I think this might be part of their business model. If they judge that they can maximise their profits by reneging on deals that they have made, they will do so. In every case, they run the risk of being sued. They judge that the costs of losing cases are less than the benefit to them of reneging on contracts. That works so long as a sufficiently small number of people pursue their claims.

I think there is an airline that has such a business model.

Pkiernan

MRRR2012 wrote: »

Bumping this thread after a few months with good news. We followed up on this via the small claim process and E-Bookers (in their usual style) did not respond within the allowed time frame and as a result they will have to pay the amount we requested (difference between price of the initial booking and what we ended up paying for the new flight and some extra for phone calls/time wasting, etc)....ironic the way it ended, their lack of responsiveness backfired this time and for once they end up paying for it.

Have you been reimbursed yet, or just been awarded a judgement?

Thanks for keeping us updated.