Shocking new video of Mr Dao being removed
#triggerwarning
Shocking new video of Mr Dao being removed
#triggerwarning
800 dude wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:According to what legal authority?
It is a contract. With specified terms, both in law and in the contract itself.
According to common law. This is basic, 1L property stuff (incidentally, a class I was guest-teaching at a top-10 law school yesterday). The background rule is that you occupy property as a licensee or invitee; conveyance of a possessory interest is the exception. The contract would have to clearly specify that it were doing so. And United wrote the contract. Do you think they would have drafted it such that they were conveying to their passengers a temporary ownership interest in their seats? That's crazy.
Right. Except in this case, United's contract had very, very specific language in which they could ask the passenger to leave (deny him transport). None of those conditions were met.
All United said to the public was that it was random. Was it really random or did they follow their process but didn't feel like explaining the details? I truly doubt it was random. Obviously you don't want to bump a parent flying with a young child, or the passengers who paid the most for their tickets. I bet it was less random than you think, but no one except United knows.
You are jumping to conclusions with minimal information.
Unless the terms of the contract conveyed a possessory interest, which they didn't, then the terms are irrelevant. He became a trespasser the instant he refused to leave.
Two officers fired in this incident, two others suspended:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/10/17/aviation-officers-fired-united-passenger-dragged/
Must not be obvious wrote:
It's standard protocol to suspend an officer when a high profile event happens. The suspension has nothing to do with guilt, it's more like a marketing move. The suspended officers are also more than likely to be getting paid while on suspension.
Are you willing to admit you were wrong?