September 10th, 2003, 12:22 AM
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 02:28:08 -0500, "Te Canaille" >
wrote:
>
>"DALing" <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote in message ...
>> continental could NOT retroactively charge your card unless they wanted to
>> be charged with FRAUD. What's done is done and they have no recourse except
>> to sue
>
>Thanks for your comment and I agree. The real problem I have here is that once thay had my credit card number from the purchase of
>an E-ticket, they were willing to use it as a threat to make me conform. Seems to me that if they are serious about good public
>relations and promoting use of e-tickets then this is the last course of action that should be taken. If I had been from another
>country, elderly, undereducated, in other words more vulnerable, this would have been a successful intimidation. There was a great
>deal of pomposity and arrogance shown on Continental's part. Shame on them.
> The letter of the law is that I should have known. The spirit of the law is that Continental should have atepped up and made it
>right when they put me in an awakard position instead of using threats.
>
>Te Canaille
>
You would, since he is the only one agreeing with any part of what you
said. Go ahead and rely on junior amateur lawyers and see what
happens in court when those that actually know what they are talking
about take you on.
wrote:
>
>"DALing" <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote in message ...
>> continental could NOT retroactively charge your card unless they wanted to
>> be charged with FRAUD. What's done is done and they have no recourse except
>> to sue
>
>Thanks for your comment and I agree. The real problem I have here is that once thay had my credit card number from the purchase of
>an E-ticket, they were willing to use it as a threat to make me conform. Seems to me that if they are serious about good public
>relations and promoting use of e-tickets then this is the last course of action that should be taken. If I had been from another
>country, elderly, undereducated, in other words more vulnerable, this would have been a successful intimidation. There was a great
>deal of pomposity and arrogance shown on Continental's part. Shame on them.
> The letter of the law is that I should have known. The spirit of the law is that Continental should have atepped up and made it
>right when they put me in an awakard position instead of using threats.
>
>Te Canaille
>
You would, since he is the only one agreeing with any part of what you
said. Go ahead and rely on junior amateur lawyers and see what
happens in court when those that actually know what they are talking
about take you on.