quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
She paid for and booked a certain seat.
She then took possession of that seat.
She was then put into an inferior (in her mind) product and what was once hers was given to another.
It is therefore exactly what I claim it is. Confiscation.
She was given no choice, there was no bargaining. There was no offer and acceptance which creates a contract as there was with her initial purchase.

The only question I have, is if she paid extra for booking "that" seat. If she did, then she might have a point, and I'd be more inclined to agree with her side against Delta. If she didn't have to pay anything extra for pre-booking that seat, then I'm less likely to support her cause. However, if the seat she pre-booked (and that's an important part of this, imo) has more legroom than the one she was moved to, I can understand her plight.

Too many if's out there yet, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
She paid for and booked a certain seat.
She then took possession of that seat.
She was then put into an inferior (in her mind) product and what was once hers was given to another.
It is therefore exactly what I claim it is. Confiscation.
She was given no choice, there was no bargaining. There was no offer and acceptance which creates a contract as there was with her initial purchase.

The only question I have, is if she paid extra for booking "that" seat. If she did, then she might have a point, and I'd be more inclined to agree with her side against Delta. If she didn't have to pay anything extra for pre-booking that seat, then I'm less likely to support her cause. However, if the seat she pre-booked (and that's an important part of this, imo) has more legroom than the one she was moved to, I can understand her plight.

Too many if's out there yet, though.

It doesn't matter if she paid extra, less or the same.
She purchased THAT seat.

If you were in a restaurant and getting ready to dig into a steak that you had ordered and already paid for, how would you react if the wait staff took it away and replaced it with 'something' of more or less equal value?
I don't care, it's not what I bought.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul


Its certainly not on the level of people being dragged off (the most infamous case) or occasions where people paid for seats for their children, yet when they get on board they are forced to hold children in their laps while a stranger sits in the seat that they themselves have already shelled money out for. Or even the inconvenience of being bumped, which happens all the time and which people know is a possibility.

My whole point is "Why should these things be a possibility?"
Why is it legal to sell something to an individual and then confiscate, by force if necessary, without their assent?
It doesn't matter who you are or what your politics.

If a person earns money and uses that money to purchase goods and services, those goods and/or services should not be confiscated in order to give them to another who is seen as 'more deserving'.
This is the quite Liberal practice known as "Redistribution of wealth".

Why should it be supported?