Opinion ID: 2508908
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Superior Court Properly Entered Judgment in Favor of Alaska Airlines on Hallam's Claim Relating to Unrestricted Tickets.

Text: Hallam claims that he purchased a ticket labeled unrestricted or U, which Alaska Airlines held out as requiring no fee to change the dates of travel. The airline, he alleges, breached a contract with him when it refused to change the dates without a fee. [12] The superior court found for the airline because Hallam ha[d] not been denied unrestricted travel to date and, in fact, has changed the tickets without charge. He therefore could not show any breach. Alaska Airlines argues that Hallam has not shown that the U designation actually means that the ticket may be changed without a fee, a claim Hallam goes to great lengths to dispute. The superior court's finding on breach, however, is dispositiveif Hallam cannot show a breach of the terms as he describes them, his claim must fail. And the court's finding that there was no breach of those terms is fully supported by the evidence. The record contains a Post Departure Information report (PDI), showing all of the activity concerning the ticket in question. The PDI shows that the change fee to which Hallam objects was waived at least once. Although Hallam testified at trial that his attempts to change the ticket or get a refund were met by demands that he pay a fee, the superior court found that his testimony was not credible. Because it is the function of the trial court, not of this court, to judge witnesses' credibility, [13] this court must give due regard [14] to the superior court's credibility judgments. Hallam offers no documentation of any failed attempts to change the ticket without a fee, nor any other reason to believe that any contract term was breached. [15] The superior court's finding that there was no breach of contract was not clearly erroneous and we affirm its judgment in favor of Alaska Airlines on this claim.