> It is the communication that you want to fly to a particular city by placing it in the destination field or by telling it to the ticket agent.
By that logic even searching for tickets without purchasing them could be argued as "fraud." Since even putting something in the destination field is, according to your argument, a material representation of intent. None of this holds up.
> By that logic even searching for tickets without purchasing them could be argued as "fraud." Since even putting something in the destination field is, according to your argument, a material representation of intent.
If you search for tickets with no intent to purchase, it's plausibly an element of fraud, but it's not fraud. The additional elements (reliance and detriment) aren't met yet. Once the purchase is complete and the rest of the events occur (i.e. intentionally abandoning travel), then all the remaining elements are fulfilled and a plausible fraud claim can commence.
Out of curiosity, how do you see the element of detriment being argued? The passenger paid for a seat. The airline will absolutely assign that seat to a standby passenger when they miss boarding. Even if they don't, the seat is paid and less passengers means less feel burn. In both cases the airline makes out better. Is the argument going to be that the airline would have charged you more had you told them you only needed the first leg and by extension you robbed them of a chance to squeeze you harder?
By that logic even searching for tickets without purchasing them could be argued as "fraud." Since even putting something in the destination field is, according to your argument, a material representation of intent. None of this holds up.
> I'm tired of arguing this to amateurs
Please review the Hacker News Guidelines:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html