Yes, the parties involved in the dispute. If one of them tries to use force on the other, then it’s a criminal matter for the police, but if the guy asserting he’s leased the car just drives it away, it’s very hard for the police to get involved. He says he has a lease; the leasing company says he has a lease, but they need the car for their own purposes.
How is a police officer supposed to decide if the lease gives the one guy absolute possession, or gives the leasing company the power to rescind the lease? That’s not a criminal law matter and the police have no power to interpret leases on the spot.
Most if not all of these regulations are intended to protect us from the airlines, who would happily remove you from any flight they could sell a ticket for at a higher price than you paid for yours. Why wouldn’t they if nothing prevented them from doing so?
Once they have accepted payment for your ticket and confirmed your reservation no matter how full the flight gets and no matter how much higher tickets are selling closer to the flight, you have a government-regulated contract with them that you are going to fly at that price. There are exceptions like overselling that have been covered in this thread but this flight wasn’t oversold. Beyond breaking any airline rules, or any safety or security issues, they aren’t legally permitted to say “sorry, my plane, my property, get out.”
This has been demonstrated in quite a few ways in this thread already - the entire relevant section of the UA contract has been posted. The CEO of UA has said "“To remove a booked, paid, seating passenger, we can’t do that” The relevant code of the federal regulation governing denied boarding has been cited as well. The fact that UA has already reversed this policy and publicly apologized even while facing almost certain litigation demonstrates that their legal counsel has already concluded they were in the wrong - not just in the eye of the public but legally. I’m not sure what additional evidence you or manson1972 need but if you need more wait for the news cycle when the lawsuits start and the DOT investigation has concluded.
I’m not sure what you mean, but I believe you are suggesting that you could present false evidence to the police. If you did, you would win the battle, but lose the war.
You would get away with my car for that day, but then lose the civil suit and possibly face criminal charges for obstructing the police investigation. Not a great long term strategy.
My point being, I don’t think the police would just look at a contract presented by one party in the dispute. My guess is, the police would ask for the title, and give the car to the owner, regardless of what the contract said.
I don’t dispute that their legal counsel has told them to get out in front of this situation and own it. It is an absolute shit show of a disaster for them, and it is better to pay and pay well than to litigate a mundane issue of private property rights that they might arguably be able to assert, but are nonetheless assholes for doing so.
If I were their counsel, I would advise them to take the same tack. It doesn’t mean that we can’t debate the underlying issues on a message board.
The rental company can call the cops and say the car is stolen. The cops find the car and the driver shows them the contract, issued by the rental company, giving him the lease of the car for that day.
Where do they get probable cause to believe there is a theft?
Because the rental company told them the lease is invalid and they have to give the car up. They said “Sorry, I already have a contract, so you can’t take it back” and just took off. So the rental company called the cop and told them that.
Plus this just seems weird to me. I can steal a car from a rental lot, print out a fake lease agreement, and you think the cops should just take my word for it? Really?
But it’s “he said - he said” - the rental company says he had a lease and he took off; he says he has a contract. He shows the police the contract, signed by the rental company. The police can’t just assume that the rental company is correct; they have to listen to both sides. And the driver is showing a lease issued by the rental company that day.
And, the fact that the rental company says the lease is invalid is not binding on either the police or the guy renting the car. They say the lease is invalid; the guy says it’s valid. The rental company is admitting that they issued a lease, but now are disputing a term of it.
This is a civil dispute about a contract. The police cannot just take the rental company’s word for it that the lease is invalid. They have no expertise in lease agreements, nor any legal power to adjudicate the lease.
The news will tell you the results of the DOT investigation and any lawsuits. Not sure what else you might need beyond that.
This really isn’t rocket science. The department of transportation has specific codes that regulate when and how airlines can deny boarding to passengers. If they wan’t to operate legally in the USA those codes supersede these imagined property rights that you believe airlines have to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason.
I’ve already said what I think they do. They do nothing, because it is a civil contract dispute and they have not power to decide a contract dispute.
On what basis do they act? They have no power to adjudicate a contract dispute. If they don’t charge the guy with any offence, how do they take property away from him?
