no show

asked 7 years ago

Good review, in the example given by Rabbi Shabtai with the donkey that collapsed at the intermediate stop and you stated that it is appropriate to share the damage between the lessor and the lessee, a legal proceeding was conducted by an airline against a passenger. Due to aggressive pricing, a flight to a destination with a bad intermediate stop can be cheaper than a direct flight to the intermediate stop. Passengers who “bought” this pricing did not show up for the connecting flight and were sued by the airline. I hope I explained myself clearly. Thank you for the fascinating lessons you uploaded to YouTube.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 7 years ago

Hello. I no longer remember the course of events and what I said. But I don’t see the connection between the cases. When a donkey crashes in this way, it is the fault of the lessor or the lessee (depending on what they knew in advance and what the lessee did). Ultimately, there is no donkey. But with regard to the plane, there is a deliberate action by the passenger and I don’t see what his side of the matter is. He made a commitment when he knew everything (and it seems that there are no fraud laws here because the price is not fixed) and did not fulfill his commitment. There is a plane at his disposal and he did not use it.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

perlmutter isaac replied 7 years ago

Thank you, should he share the profit with the carrier, as you expect them to share the losses? This was the essence of the carrier's claim against the passenger, the passenger paid for the connecting flight and decided not to show up for financial reasons.

מיכי Staff replied 7 years ago

In your case, this is not a division of profit, since he agreed on the price in advance and deliberately acted against the agreement. As I wrote, a decision for economic reasons is not equivalent to the death of the donkey. If the plane had broken down, it might have been similar (and there is a division of that too).