Replies

that was “Norman” commenting at 8:55 AM and 9:01 AM here:

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html

(I was actually referring to a FR comment on a different article, but whatever.)

“Norman” refers to an IMHO obscure “standard” definition which is not however supplied, and in any case is apparently not mentioned in United’s rules.

So, the IMHO obscure “standard” definition is not within the 4 corners of the contract.

Oops.

So, IMHO Dr. Dao is correct to interpret the contract that he should be allowed to stay on the plane.

It is UAL’s responsibility to define (or re-define in this case) explicitly in a contract a technical term if the technical term is different from the commonly accepted English term by a reasonable person.

Note that later at 9:35 PM “gregory barton” wrote

Norman says,

“When the last door is closed, boarding is then complete. This is a critical point because the airline had the legal right to deny boarding to Mr. Dao in this case because the aircraft doors were still open.”

The issue is not when boarding is complete. It is whether a passenger can be denied boarding. The author claims that one cannot be denied boarding if, by one’s action, one has already boarded. The airline would be estopped from invoking the ‘denial of boarding’ clause.

The contract of carriage does not define ‘boarding’, which term must therefore be given its ordinary meaning, ‘get onto the aircraft’.

However, I would go further. The appropriate point at which boarding is deemed is not physical boarding but issuing the boarding pass. At that moment the airline has given its assent to board. If it attempted to deny boarding after issuing the boarding pass it would be estopped. The physical boarding of passengers is irrelevant.

I agree with Mr. Barton.

What are Mr. Barton and I missing here?