FACULTYTALK Archives

May 2010

FACULTYTALK@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Terence Lau <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
Date:
Wed, 26 May 2010 11:29:43 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (45 lines)
What I meant to say, perhaps inartfully, is that there is a layer of
consumer deception here.  Deception is too strong of a word.  What
Continental is doing is not unusual, but I think it might be unfair.
Continental decides when to schedule the flight, what route the flight will
fly, how much to charge for the ticket, issues the ticket, collects the
money, awards frequent flyer miles, uses Continental airport facilities
like lounges, and allows Colgan to use the Continental brand and logo on
the plane, seats covers, napkins and peanuts.  Colgan, a company I would
guess a tiny minority of Continental customers have ever heard of, owns and
operates the plane and the crew -- that's it.  I do think that is different
than a typical insurance contract.  This isn't just a typical trademark
licensing agreement either, like someone trying to sue Jeep for a Jeep
stroller malfunctioning.  Continental's presence on the Colgan product is
overwhelming.

I think a more typical analogy would be if Toyota decided to shift all
their warranty responsibilities to one of those third-party warranty
providers that's always trying to sell extended warranties, and allowed
that third party to call themselves Toyota Express and use the Toyota logo.
If a customer faced a problem with getting a dealer to honor a warranty
claim, and contacted Toyota, Toyota could just wash their hands clean and
tell the customer to contact the warranty provider.  Isn't that at least
deceptive?



Regarding "It's an interesting sleight of hand created by contract, isn't
it?", what's unusual or unfair about this? How does this differ from
typical agent indemnification of principal (which doesn't even require
contract) or a typical insurance contract? Continental is liable to the
full extent, but will be indemnified to the extent that the indemnifier is
liable or solvent; beyond that Continental can be made to pay; and
Continental pays the price in terms of loss of reputation. Except for a
lack of consumer transparency at the outset, what's the problem?

Murray Levin

Murray S. Levin
Professor
University of Kansas
School of Business
[log in to unmask]
785-864-7506
913-262-2688

ATOM RSS1 RSS2