Opinion ID: 2508908
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Superior Court Properly Entered Judgment in Favor of Alaska Airlines on Hallam's Claim Relating to the Purported Overcharge for Tickets He Bought from the Airline's Website.

Text: Hallam claims that he was overcharged for tickets he purchased through the Alaska Airlines website in June 1997. He claims that the website advertised a total ticket price of $180 but his credit card was charged $697 for it. Alaska Airlines refunded all but nine dollars of the difference. He has sued for the nine dollars. The superior court held that Hallam had not proved that the charge on his credit card was a breach because he failed to prove he was promised a fare at the [lower] rate he asserts. The court based this conclusion on several factual findings, most of which Hallam challenges. Most importantly, the court did not believe Hallam's testimony. Hallam, the court found, was not particularly credible in his claim that he actually reserved or purchased a ticket for the price he claimed. The superior court also relied in part on the testimony of an Alaska Airlines customer service employee who testified that her internal investigation found no evidence confirming that ... he reserved at [the lower] fare or that Alaska Airlines even offered this fare. The employee also testified that Hallam's was the only complaint of this sort that she heard. Finally, the court noted that while federal law requires the publication of airline prices, the official publication had no record of the price Hallam claimed. In evaluating Hallam's testimony, the court relied on his failure to present documentation of any ticket(s) or ticket confirmation of any travel reserved or purchased at the alleged fare. The court found that the documentation Hallam did produce was a letter that he drafted that purported to duplicate a web fare advertisement for travel at the lower rate. Hallam asserts that the document in the record is in fact a printout of the web page itself; Alaska Airlines makes no claim as to whether the document is authentic or not. The authenticity of the document, however, is immaterial. Even if it is authentic, it does not establish Hallam's claim. The document states: To proceed in holding a reservation or purchasing Instant Travel, click `Continue.' This shows only that Hallam saw the lower price. It does not establish decisively that he purchased a ticket at the lower price. Hallam points out that the customer service employee was at the top of a long chain and that all complaints would not necessarily be communicated to her. The employee did, however, testify that she would be surprised if [she] didn't hear about a problem like his. The superior court was entitled to credit the witness. [18] Hallam attacks the superior court's reliance on the fact that the official publication for airline fares had no record of the fare Hallam claimed to have purchased. He compares the prices offered on the website on a given day with those published in the official publication for airline fares on the same day and shows that the official publication does not always match the website fares. This casts some doubt on the weight the superior court should have given this evidence, but is insufficient to undermine the superior court's conclusion that Hallam did not purchase this fare. Finally, Hallam points to the PDI for this ticket, which appears to say that he received a refund due to an incorrect Internet fare. This may suggest that someone at the airline at one time thought that Hallam had been overcharged. The superior court apparently found that other evidence outweighed it, and decided that Hallam had not shown that he bought the ticket at the lower fare. We ordinarily will not disturb findings of fact made upon conflicting evidence. [19] In view of all the evidence and the superior court's findings, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction on the entire record that a mistake has been made. [20] The superior court's findings are not clearly erroneous and we therefore affirm its judgment in favor of Alaska Airlines on this claim.