EBookers refuses to honour flight - help please

MRRR2012

Hi,
I try to be concise and explain this issue as clearly as possible, your advice are very much appreciated.

I booked a flight from Dublin to Rio (via London) with EBookers at 585€ a couple of weeks ago (flying with BMI). I received the email confirmation and all flights were confirmed, however there was no mentions of the Rio-London piece - even though EBookers confirmation email says that there is no need to call them to confirm the flights, I went ahead and gave them a call for peace of mind.

Thankfully I did so, as they said that the flight Rio-London with BMI is no longer operational and I need to go ahead and cancel the booking (and pay cancellation fees lol).
We went back and forth arguing for about a week - their customer service is really appolling, they keep going with the "we call you back" line, just to disappear and hope we forget. Note that for all this time the same flight was still showing on sale on ebookers website for the same price! They finally said that there is absolutely nothing they can do about that because it is not their fault that BMI does not operate on those dates with those flights (that they were still selling) - they "kindly" offer to refund the 585€ (they already charged my credit card) free of cancellation fees (lucky me! :rolleyes:).
I suggested them that if the flight is no longer operational they should find another flight with another airline for me for that price, as this is how it should work. They refused.

I obviously had no intention to just leave it like that, and checked around on other websites such as lastminute.ie and the same flight was on sale there (higher price) with BMI and after I called them they confirmed that it is operational.
I then called BMI directly and they confirmed that the flight Rio-London is indeed operational on those dates.

So, my conclusion is that EBookers is lying - they were selling the flights for 585€, they realised that it was too cheap and refuse to honour it and just went ahead an cancelled (by the way, I never gave them approval to cancel it, as the issue was still under investigation!).

I would like to hear your opinion on this - can they do something like this? do I have any rights? Is it not their responsibility not to sell flights that they cannot honour?
I am planning to follow this up and take them to court is necessary.

Thank you.

dudara

A seller can refuse to sell an item at the listed price - it falls under a concept called "invitation to treat". They do not have to honour the price.

Remember that eBookers are just a reseller for the airline, and their systems may not have the same information as the airline itself.

To be honest, if you having such a bad experience with them, I do not understand why you are so determined to purchase from them. Vote with your wallet and give the money to a better company.

Paulw

BMI can dictate who can sell seats, and how many they can sell. Maybe ebookers sold their allocation, so you can't get the flight.

If they are offering a full refund, then you will get nothing more by taking them to court (except a bill for your own solicitor).

Take the refund. Go to BMI directly and try to book the flight. Go to any other flight booking service and book the flight.

They have no obligation to get you an alternate flight at that price.

Clauric

There is another element of this to be considered. As e-Bookers took the money, they accepted and fulfilled the final elements of the contract. The return of the money by e-Bookers does not negate their obligations, especially if you did not ask for a refund.

If this were to go to court, you could request specific performance, as you are willing to pay for the goods.

whippet

Clauric wrote: »

If this were to go to court, you could request specific performance, as you are willing to pay for the goods.

however, if ebookers are unable to perform their side of the contract they can refund all money paid and cancel the contract.

ch750536

whippet wrote: »

however, if ebookers are unable to perform their side of the contract they can refund all money paid and cancel the contract.

Very very grey area. They are able, even if this means paying for a BA first class flight, it simply looks like they don't want to.
Contract is binding in my opinion, they took the cash. They can deliver (at a cost). Like I said though, this isn't solid advice but I think in your position I would deny cancellation & insist they carry you as per the contract, pointing out the lies they have already told.

Aug2009

Do you have any friends with a legal background? I think you should contact the National Consumer Agency or somewhere like that and word an extremely strong letter stating that you will not take no for an answer (assuming the NCA says you are right). Perhaps you should CC the airline on it. Nobody wants bad press so therefore they may back down and who knows even upgrade you?:D

Surely it is beyond an invitation to treat when they take your money.:eek:

Best of luck with this. THey should not be allowed get away with it.:mad:

whippet

ch750536 wrote: »

Very very grey area. They are able, even if this means paying for a BA first class flight, it simply looks like they don't want to.
Contract is binding in my opinion, they took the cash. They can deliver (at a cost). Like I said though, this isn't solid advice but I think in your position I would deny cancellation & insist they carry you as per the contract, pointing out the lies they have already told.

But the OP didn't pay or book a first class ticket with BA .... you can't force performance of a contact with a different product.

In all likely hood ebookers had an allocation of seats on the BMI flight at a contracted price. This allocation has been sold and unfortunately the OP ordered a product from ebookers that was no longer available (the product being - ebookers discounted fare with BMI)

While I wouldn't be happy either, and some companies out there would offer to take the hit on an other flight as a gesture of goodwill I am confident that ebooker's refunding of the full cost is all they have to do.

ch750536

whippet wrote: »

But the OP didn't pay or book a first class ticket with BA .... you can't force performance of a contact with a different product.

No, they booked a flight from London to Rio.

dudara

They probably booked a standard seat from London to Rio - which it appears eBookers can't supply. Therefore they cancelled the sale.

Nody

ch750536 wrote: »

No, they booked a flight from London to Rio.

As a specific fligth class which was not first class. By your example if Ford failed to deliver the car I ordered I have the right to request a bugatti instead because they happen to have one of those in store.

whippet

ch750536 wrote: »

No, they booked a flight from London to Rio.

taking this to extremes to highlight my point.

I order a €30k Audi A3 from a Audi dealership. The delivery date of the car is scheduled for the 1st Feb.

I arrive at the dealership on the 1st Feb to pickup my new car, paid for etc...

Salesman comes out and tells me that the trailer transporting my new car fell off the harbor in dublin port and the car is at the bottom of the ocean.

The only car in showroom is a brand new Audi R8 worth well in excess of €100k ... I can't demand that the Audi Dealership give me that car in order to perform the contract.

P. Breathnach

There seems to be a view here that a seller can walk away from a contract simply because they stop liking it.

Ebookers made a contract with OP. If all that OP tells us is correct, the seller lied about the availability of the flight in order to get out of the contract; OP then found that the flight was available, and that seats were available, albeit at a higher price than at the time the contract was made between Ebookers and OP.

It looks to me as if OP is entitled to go for specific performance. Chances are that there might not be time for legal action before the date of the flight. Plan B might be to notify Ebookers that if they do not agree to specific performance, OP will book the same flights at the best price obtainable and proceed against Ebookers for the difference.

dudara

I think there's no doubt that the flights are available (from BMI) - the question is if they are available to eBookers? That's the piece of information we don't have.

whippet

P. Breathnach wrote: »

the seller lied about the availability of the flight in order to get out of the contract;.

This is the crux of the issue.

If the flights were not available to ebookers, specific performance can't be enforced.

P. Breathnach

dudara wrote: »

...the question is if they are available to eBookers? That's the piece of information we don't have.

whippet wrote: »

... If the flights were not available to ebookers, specific performance can't be enforced.

Come on! It seems evident that the seats are available; Ebookers are (in internet terms) a long-established business; there is no obvious reason to conclude that BMI would refuse to sell to Ebookers for one of their customers.

The obvious inference is that Ebookers sold the seats at a lower price than it would cost them to purchase them. Rather than take the hit, Ebookers want to walk away.

MRRR2012

Please remember that EBookers was selling that exact same flight at the very same price for another 10 days after the issue was addressed. So even if by accident they did not have any more seats allocated to them (and would expect if this is the case the website to be updated real-time automatically), it is a bit unrealistic that it was still available for sale for another 10 days.

Also, what if I follow their instruction, went ahead and got stock in Rio because there was no return flight available. I would need to spend thousands of € to get an available flight on the same day. What would they do then?

The way I see it, if you don't have it, then don't sell it. If you sell something, and you take the money, then you take responsibility for it....it can't be just a "ops, we don't have it, whatever....we tried to steal your money but didn't work out. Next customer please." :mad:

ResearchWill

whippet wrote: »

This is the crux of the issue.

If the flights were not available to ebookers, specific performance can't be enforced.

I think you misunderstand basic contract law ebookers offered for sale tickets on a set day for a set price 585, that is offer, the OP then booked said tickets and received confirmation email, that acceptance, then OP paid 585 euro to ebookers that is consideration. So there was a contract, if ebookers say sorry we can't do that and can show a valid legal reason why they can't fulfill the contract for example the contract is frustrated then they can get out of the contract otherwise they are stuck. Now if the op can get the flight on that day but it is now more expensive then he is entitled to damages from ebookers for the difference. If say the OP had to go on a certain date for business and the only seat now available was in first class for 10k return then sorry ebookers would more than likely have to pay damages of the difference.

The only reason specific performance would not be used inthis case is that the courts would not hear the action before the flight, so the OP only option is to mitigate his loss book with another firm and sue for damages.

MOH

whippet wrote: »

taking this to extremes to highlight my point.

I order a €30k Audi A3 from a Audi dealership. The delivery date of the car is scheduled for the 1st Feb.

I arrive at the dealership on the 1st Feb to pickup my new car, paid for etc...

Salesman comes out and tells me that the trailer transporting my new car fell off the harbor in dublin port and the car is at the bottom of the ocean.

The only car in showroom is a brand new Audi R8 worth well in excess of €100k ... I can't demand that the Audi Dealership give me that car in order to perform the contract.

Ebookers charged the card. Then lied about there being no flights available, while continuing to sell the same flights on their site.

If it's a case that ebookers had a cheap deal with BMI to get the seats, then sold out of all of those seats, but there's still seats available in the same class that would cost ebookers more, then that's their tough luck. They should honour the booking. They can't just unilaterally break the contract because of a miscalculation on their part.

If it's a case that only seats in a more expensive class are available, that's different, but I'd still question why they then continued to sell a product that they knew for a fact was unavailable.

In the car analogy, if the salesman told you he was refunding the money because the car was no longer in production, whereas in fact it was just because the price had gone up for the same model in the meantime, you'd be expecting him to supply you the original car at the original price.

I'd get on to the NCA about it.

whippet

Specific Performance usually is only granted when it is reasonable for the person being made to perform.

ebookers would probably loose over twice the contracted price of the initial offer. I wouldn't be confident what so ever that a judge would order specific performance in this case.

Advise telling the OP to go and book anything up to an including first class flight and sue for compensation afterwards is silly and somewhat dangerous.

Specific Performance as used in Common Law isn't designed for cases like this.

ResearchWill

whippet wrote: »

Specific Performance usually is only granted when it is reasonable for the person being made to perform.

ebookers would probably loose over twice the contracted price of the initial offer. I wouldn't be confident what so ever that a judge would order specific performance in this case.

Advise telling the OP to go and book anything up to an including first class flight and sue for compensation afterwards is silly and somewhat dangerous.

Specific Performance as used in Common Law isn't designed for cases like this.

Many courts in Ireland are at this moment giving orders for specific performance of contracts to buy land and houses against people who can not borrow the money. They can not get the million yet the courts are ordering them to perform the contract. Also people who agreed to buy a house for a million that the builder had to sell to someone else for 250k are being ordered to pay damages of 750k.

I did not advise the OP to buy a first class ticket. What I did say as an example is if the OP had to travel on a certain day for business and after booking with the company and confirming they later said with out good lawfull excuse we can't do it and the only way he could now make his meeting was to book a first class ticket then he may, I did use the word "more than likely" be entitled to damages.

P. Breathnach

whippet wrote: »

Specific Performance usually is only granted when it is reasonable for the person being made to perform.

ebookers would probably loose over twice the contracted price of the initial offer. I wouldn't be confident what so ever that a judge would order specific performance in this case.

It's the nature of business that some deals yield a profit and others don't. The fact that Ebookers made a deal that might lose them money is not a justification for breaking a contract.

As you like to illustrate things with analogies, I suggest that you liken Ebookers to a bookmaker who chooses to cancel all winning bets placed by punters, refunding the stake money, but keeps all losing bets.

Advise telling the OP to go and book anything up to an including first class flight and sue for compensation afterwards is silly and somewhat dangerous.

Nobody is advising that.

Specific Performance as used in Common Law isn't designed for cases like this.

Oh. Why not?

Del2005

P. Breathnach wrote: »

As you like to illustrate things with analogies, I suggest that you liken Ebookers to a bookmaker who chooses to cancel all winning bets placed by punters, refunding the stake money, but keeps all losing bets.

Bad choice for comparison. Bookies don't have to pay out on winnings. They may never get any other bets but there's no law requiring gambling debts be paid back.

Something is definitely rotten in Ebookers thought and even if the OP gets their tickets they won't get much support from Ebookers if anything goes wrong, as can be seen already!

ch750536

Nody wrote: »

As a specific fligth class which was not first class. By your example if Ford failed to deliver the car I ordered I have the right to request a bugatti instead because they happen to have one of those in store.

No, just something of similar quality, that is what I would expect. Lets be honest here, they made an error but they did take the cash. Maybe they should have made sure there was a seat before they took the cash.
What if this was the day before flying & I used my last 600 to buy a flight? They want to refund me which would mean I couldn't book another flight. Still just an error.
Don't misunderstand me, I am kinda playing devils advocate but this is an industry that always has its cake and eats it, at times they behave in an apopaling way and a rebalance would be nice.

ch750536

dudara wrote: »

I think there's no doubt that the flights are available (from BMI) - the question is if they are available to eBookers? That's the piece of information we don't have.

Flights are still available, they just have to pay more and book them through BMI, available online.

drkpower

Everyone on this thread seem to be giving 'advice' on what remedies the OP may or may not have under contract law. Yet noone has referred to (or asked to see) the contract the OP has with e-bookers.

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

Everyone on this thread seem to be giving 'advice' on what remedies the OP may or may not have under contract law. Yet noone has referred to (or asked to see) the contract the OP has with e-bookers.

For a simple reason there is no need to in this case, if there are T&C's which in any way try to get Ebookers out of this it would fail under both Irish and EU law most importantly unfair terms in consumer contracts.

The issue for Ebookers is that they took the money then refused to fulfill the contract. From the information from the OP it is clear that the company originally said to him they could refund the money but there would be a cancelation fee, so there it is not likely there is a situation where Ebookers took the money on the basis that they may get a ticket for that price.

In any event Ebookers T&C's don't really help them and are as follows.

b) Changes And Cancellations – by us
Occasionally we may have to make changes to your booking. Most of these changes will be minor and we will advise you of the change as soon as we are able to before your journey commences. If there is a significant change, which is not due to an event beyond our control, you will be offered a choice of an alternative comparable trip (if available) or a refund. If the reason for the significant change to the booking is due to an event beyond our control (as described below) we will not be liable to offer you any compensation.

c) Significant changes are normally regarded as:-
i) A change in your Irish departure airport;

ii) A change of more than 12 hours in your departure time from Ireland;

iii) A change in your resort area overseas; or

iv) A change of accommodation to a lower classification than that which you have booked

In the unlikely event that your booking has to be cancelled, a full refund will be made of all monies previously paid to us, to the person/s who originally paid for the booking.

Should your flight be cancelled, your rights and remedies will be governed by the airline's conditions of carriage. As a result you may be entitled to: (a) carriage on another flight with the same airline without additional costs; (b) re-routing to your destination with another carrier without additional costs; (c) receiving a full refund; or (d) some other right or remedy.

As you can see if your flight is cancelled "you may be entitled to: (a) carriage on another flight with the same airline without additional costs" the OP was not offered any of the above and only got a full refund when he fought for it.

drkpower

ResearchWill wrote: »

Should your flight be cancelled, your rights and remedies will be governed by the airline's conditions of carriage. As a result you may be entitled to: (a) carriage on another flight with the same airline without additional costs; (b) re-routing to your destination with another carrier without additional costs; (c) receiving a full refund; or (d) some other right or remedy.

As you can see if your flight is cancelled "you may be entitled to: (a) carriage on another flight with the same airline without additional costs" the OP was not offered any of the above and only got a full refund when he fought for it.

It seems (from the info you posted) that if the flight is cancelled beyond e bookers control, they are obliged to provide one of 4 options (a-d) above. While it took a while, they appear to have offered a full refund.

If the cancellation is within their control, they appear to be obliged to offer a choice of an alternative comparable trip (if available) or a refund. They offered a full refund (eventually).

Where do you think unfair terms in consumer contracts comes into it?

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

It seems (from the info you posted) that if the flight is cancelled beyond e bookers control, they are obliged to provide one of 4 options (a-d) above. While it took a while, they appear to have offered a full refund.

If the cancellation is within their control, they appear to be obliged to offer a choice of an alternative comparable trip (if available) or a refund. They offered a full refund (eventually).

Where do you think unfair terms in consumer contracts comes into it?

I was answering a specific statement about not having read the contract. I said that if ebookers had some clause that allowed them to take your money and not provide you with a flight for no good reason then that clause would be unfair.

In this situation the flight is going as sold to the OP and seats are available, so it is not a situation where it is being cancelled either in or out of their control. Just because ebookers did a bad deal a contract is a contract, unless ebookers say no it's not a contract untill we say then such a term maybe unfair.

To recap the op picked a flight, ebookers gave him a price, he offered to book at that price, ebookers took his money. They sent him a email confirming everything. Only when he contacted them did they say na we don't want to fulfill that contract, we will refund your money less cancelation fee, OP said no so he got full refund, ebookers have not fulfilled their contract the op is entitled in contract law to any damages. there is no reason other than cost of flight why ebookers can not book the flight, that is not a valid reason in contract law. As you say there terms and conditions say they can offer a comparable trip if available, it is available simple they must honor the contract.

Say the OP was flying to rio for 10 nights, he booked flight, then on strength of that booked 10 nights accom for €1000, he per paid to get a good price and now can't get a refund. He must in this situation mitigate his loss so say the only flight he can now get is €999 euros he is entitled to the difference between 585 and 999. On the other hand the only ticket he can get is 2000 then the court may say his loss is capped at 1000 the loss of hotel booking, but of course it would depend on the facts.

drkpower

ResearchWill wrote: »

As you say there terms and conditions say they can offer a comparable trip if available, it is available simple they must honor the contract.

If the cancellation is not beyond ebookers control, they have to offer a choice of an alternative comparable trip (if available) or a refund. 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. There is some wiggle room for ebookers there, but it will obviously depend on the specific facts of this case. I dont think you can automatically assume that this would come within 'unfair terms' legislation.

If the cancellation is beyond e-boookers control, ebookers only have to offer one of the 4 options, one of which is a refund, which the OP was given (eventually). It is not clear what reason ebookers gave for the cancellation though, and whether they claim it was outside of their control, and if so, why.

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

If the cancellation is not beyond ebookers control, they have to offer a choice of an alternative comparable trip (if available) or a refund. 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. There is some wiggle room for ebookers there, but it will obviously depend on the specific facts of this case. I dont think you can automatically assume that this would come within 'unfair terms' legislation.

If the cancellation is beyond e-boookers control, ebookers only have to offer one of the 4 options, one of which is a refund, which the OP was given (eventually). It is not clear what reason ebookers gave for the cancellation though, and whether they claim it was outside of their control, and if so, why.

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.

My quotes "I was answering a specific statement about not having read the contract. I said that if ebookers had some clause that allowed them to take your money and not provide you with a flight for no good reason then that clause would be unfair."

And

" Just because ebookers did a bad deal a contract is a contract, unless ebookers say no it's not a contract untill we say then such a term maybe unfair."

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.

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.