RYANAIR, wont pay my baggage costs back to me.

samizdat

DrScotsman wrote: »

The supplier is not liable in any way if she decides she no longer needs this service. You are talking as if a consumer has a right to disolve the contract so long as they don't cause the supplier a loss, but that's not true in the slightest.

Actually, that is absolutely true. You do have a right to breach contracts but, if you do, you must compensate the other party for consequential loss. The other party must demonstrate actual loss and has a duty to mitigate any losses (e.g. if a passenger on a flight can be replaced by another passenger at the same price, no loss has occurred).

Of course, those who are in a position to impose contractual terms on those with less market power (i.e. companies versus individual consumers) will typically cover themselves by saying that the cost of a flight is not refundable, or is subject to an administration charge and so on.

No doubt, although I have not read the contract, Ryanair have some clause stating that the baggage fees are non-refundable even if no baggage is carried. But the point is, as citizens, we do not have to like the way companies do business and politicians do frequently intervene in markets, via legislation, to prohibit certain commercial practices. The Unfair Contract Terms Act, the Sale of Goods Act, laws on defective products and so on have imposed strict limits on the freedom of contracting parties.

In this case, there is a contract for services, namely the provision of a flight and also for optional additional baggage-handling services. The baggage-handling services that have been paid for in advance by the OP will not now be performed by Ryanair. Why should Ryanair get to keep the money? If you say, "the lost opportunity to profit from the provision of these services" then a further question is whether there is a cost to Ryanair of providing these services. If there is, Ryanair's profit on this element of the contract would be the price paid less the costs of performance. If there is no partial refund, Ryanair will get a windfall additional profit because it will incur no performance costs.

Equally, there is nothing wrong with saying "I like Ryanair's low-cost flights but I wish the company operated a different charging structure. It is annoying." Other people can say "if you don't like it, don't use the company". Neither point of view invalidates the other.

DrScotsman

samizdat wrote: »

Actually, that is absolutely true. You do have a right to breach contracts but, if you do, you must compensate the other party for consequential loss. The other party must demonstrate actual loss and has a duty to mitigate any losses (e.g. if a passenger on a flight can be replaced by another passenger at the same price, no loss has occurred).

For starters while one can breach a contract you wouldn't say they have a "right" to do so. No one has a "right" to civially wrong someone, unless by "right" you mean you cannot be stopped from doing it or arrested for it.

Secondly I said dissolve, not breach. Tell me how exactly the OP can go around breaching her contract with Ryanair? Since she's already paid she can't. You cannot just say "I wish to breach this contract, give me my money back".

Are you seriously saying that any contract term that says it cannot be cancelled with refund (less the company's actual losses) is unenforcable? Advance train tickets ("The train was running anyway"), mobile contracts ("It doesn't cost the network any extra to deliver my texts"), sending letters ("You were going to deliver to that address anyway"). I really hope someone more legally minded comes on here because you're really talking rubbish.

HouseHuntr

samizdat wrote: »

There seems to be a widely held assumption in these forums that "freedom of contract" is such a universal principle that anything at all can be included in the terms of a contract and automatically be valid and enforceable.

This is not true in law and, moreover, even if a particular term of a contract is found to be legally enforceable, that does not mean that one has no right to be annoyed by it, object to it, or otherwise seek by political means or moral pressure to overturn it.

From a legal standpoint, I think it is arguable (I say no more than that) that the OP has paid for luggage space and luggage check-in on this flight, whereas she no longer requires the luggage space and no longer requires to check it in. In these circumstances, she could argue that she is entitled to a refund of that part of the cost of her flight.

But even if that legal argument would not be upheld, she is perfectly entitled not to like it and to be annoyed by it, in spite of the fact that it was included in the T&Cs.

***
[Edit: Sorry, was moving computer so had to cut things short]

Just to expand the legal point a bit, an ordinary consumer is not in a position to negotiate the terms of a contract with a commercial counterparty - he must take it or leave it. In these circumstances, the "contra proferentem" principle applies and contractual terms will be construed against the interests of the proferens (in this case Ryanair). Therefore, you could say that the main purpose of the agreement was to agree the cost of the flight and that the baggage charge was incidental and its price should be deemed to reflect the cost in terms of administration and fuel to Ryanair of such baggage. Whereas, if the baggage is not in fact carried and Ryanair is notified in good time, then Ryanair is under a duty to mitigate any losses arising from the change of plan and its loss should be assessed as close to zero, therefore the passenger is entitled to a refund of the baggage charge.

Also, within the European Union, since 1994 there has been an interpretive presumption in favor of consumers. The 93/13/EC Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts has a provision to this effect: “Where there is doubt about the meaning of a term, the interpretation most favorable to the consumer shall prevail.” If the Ryanair contract is silent on the question of whether refunds will be given in these circumstances, or if there is any ambiguity on this point, then I submit that the contract should therefore be construed in favour of the complainant.

Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn !!!

samizdat

DrScotsman wrote: »

For starters while one can breach a contract you wouldn't say they have a "right" to do so. No one has a "right" to civially wrong someone, unless by "right" you mean you cannot be stopped from doing it or arrested for it.

Secondly I said dissolve, not breach. Tell me how exactly the OP can go around breaching her contract with Ryanair? Since she's already paid she can't. You cannot just say "I wish to breach this contract, give me my money back".

Are you seriously saying that any contract term that says it cannot be cancelled with refund (less the company's actual losses) is unenforcable? Advance train tickets ("The train was running anyway"), mobile contracts ("It doesn't cost the network any extra to deliver my texts"), sending letters ("You were going to deliver to that address anyway"). I really hope someone more legally minded comes on here because you're really talking rubbish.

1. Try to be polite when you argue with people. Address what they have said without criticising them personally.

2. I didn't say that any contract term that says it cannot be cancelled with refund is unenforceable.

3. My point was that Ryanair's expectations under the contract would have been to make a profit of the purchase price less its costs of performance. If there is no partial refund representing the element of cost, Ryanair will have made an excess profit. The timing of payment (in this case it has been made in advance) is not really relevant to the question of whether Ryanair is entitled to retain all the money.

4. On the question of the "right" to breach a contract, I agree it is confusing to use that terminology when as you say it is a civil wrong to do so. The question of the moral underpinnings of Contract Law is complex and expert views do differ but to say "you can't be arrested for it" (a breach of contract) does seem to imply an excessive degree of moral disapproval for what is a commonplace occurrence. Contractual remedies are available to repair the damage done to the "injured party" and many jurists would argue that there is no need to feel any moral obligation to fulfil contractual obligations (cf. Posner's Chicago School and the economics of "efficient breach").

jammin_2

To be fair, it was plain to see where this thread was going to go from the start.

DrScotsman

samizdat wrote: »

1. Try to be polite when you argue with people. Address what they have said without criticising them personally.

I don't think saying what you were talking was rubbish was criticising you personally. It was merely another way of saying it is wrong.

2. I didn't say that any contract term that says it cannot be cancelled with refund is unenforceable.

What do you think of my given examples then?

Your line of reasoning has confused me so let's look at this from another angle.

The OP attempts to "breach" the contract (???) and asks for her money back. Ryanair refuse to refund. So (theoretically of course) the OP takes them to court. Ryanair themselves have not comitted breach of contract, and have not been negligent in any way. Unless I'm very mistaken to sue under contract law you need the former and to sue under Tort law you need the latter. How exactly can the judge find Ryanair liable?

rapunzelz86

:rotfl:i was going to say "how did i know exactly how this thread would go just by reading the title"
But jammin beat me to it.
So many threads like this, start with someone asking for advice, get a few sympathetic even if negative replies, then OP gets jumped on in a "what gives you the right" kind of fashion, then OP is nowhere to be found whilst the rest just argue amongst themselves.
Im not complaining, its usually amusing but not if youre the OP.
These threads are for advice! please advise and dont be mean!!

Altarf

samizdat wrote: »

3. My point was that Ryanair's expectations under the contract would have been to make a profit of the purchase price less its costs of performance. If there is no partial refund representing the element of cost, Ryanair will have made an excess profit. The timing of payment (in this case it has been made in advance) is not really relevant to the question of whether Ryanair is entitled to retain all the money.

But as has already been mentioned, the same applies in any 'advance purchase, no cancellation' contract, such as advance purchase train tickets, mobile phone contracts with bundled minutes and texts, broadband contracts, car hire, etc.

With all of these, if you don't use the ticket, phone, broadband, car hire, etc, the provider will not have incurred the costs that they expected and will have made "an excess profit" according to you.

samizdat

DrScotsman wrote: »

I don't think saying what you were talking was rubbish was criticising you personally. It was merely another way of saying it is wrong.



What do you think of my given examples then?

Your line of reasoning has confused me so let's look at this from another angle.

The OP attempts to "breach" the contract (???) and asks for her money back. Ryanair refuse to refund. So (theoretically of course) the OP takes them to court. Ryanair themselves have not comitted breach of contract, and have not been negligent in any way. Unless I'm very mistaken to sue under contract law you need the former and to sue under Tort law you need the latter. How exactly can the judge find Ryanair liable?

It was the "legally-minded" comment that I thought was ad hominem. "Rubbish" is maybe a bit harsh too.

However, I see what you are saying about the absence of any actionable breach or tortious act. What about a restitutionary remedy for "unjust enrichment" on the grounds of "failure of consideration"? This is neither a contractual nor a tort law matter but "Equity will assist" etc.

DrScotsman

samizdat wrote: »

It was the "legally-minded" comment that I thought was ad hominem. "Rubbish" is maybe a bit harsh too.

I meant that I was not legally minded. I thought I was, but while I can normally follow threads touching on legal points you have managed to confuse me a few times, so I was putting it down to me.

However, I see what you are saying about the absence of any actionable breach or tortious act. What about a restitutionary remedy for "unjust enrichment" on the grounds of "failure of consideration"? This is neither a contractual nor a tort law matter but "Equity will assist" etc.

Case in point. I'll admit I've never heard of "failure of consideration", but the first definition of Google is "not delivering goods or services when promised in a contract", and the Wikipedia definition includes "somebody fails entirely to perform their side of a contract." Don't think Ryanair fall under that.