« CA1: just how far can the First bend on 911 transcripts and prosecutorial remarks? | Main | Cali: successive habeas petition win on BWS »

February 07, 2007


Barry Barnett

Thank you for the mention in your last paragraph. The Blawgletter post, to which your post refers, says that the court's outcome "seems obvious". The outcome -- that nonrefundable means not at all refundable -- does seem obvious at first glance. But I do agree that if an airline collects a "tax" on a nonrefundable ticket it should refund the "tax" part of the fare if the purchaser doesn't use the ticket and requests a refund.

The comments to this entry are closed.