[jimworcs]

JR, that is the most ridiculous analogy I have ever heard. McDonalds sells "Meal Deals" now which are considerably cheaper than the individual prices. It would be utterly ludicrous for McDonald's to be going around snatching people's Chicken McNuggets because they didn't eat their fries. There is no court in the land which would enforce this "contract". Indeed, McDonald's could have no legal dominion over the goods as they are the property of the customer.

Your example actually makes the opposite point you seek to make. It illustrates the ridiculousness of the types of "Terms and Conditions" that airlines seek to impose in order to protect their byzantine pricing model. The conditions imposed by airlines are intended to block passengers from taking advantage of better pricing. There is no legitimate reason for this condition, other than to penalise customers for getting a "bargain". Airlines want to have it both ways, and due to lack of regulation, they get away with it. The "contract" doesn't apply to the airlines, who can sell more seats than they have and then fail to deliver on their contract. If however, a customer notices that that a flight from Orlando to Charlotte, via Atlanta is cheaper than a direct flight from Orlando to Atlanta and decides to buy the Charlotte flight and throw away the second segment, they are penalised. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. Instead, airlines have legal immunity from standard consumer protection laws and resist any attempt to give passengers rights.

Thanks for the example though... it makes the point beautifully.