Kind of amazing a "common law" argument is making it's way to the Supremes. I thought withdrawal of an offer is pretty basic, even Jimmy Buffett's contracts state "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone with a bad attitude." The Court of initial jurisdiction flatly stated the Plaintiff failed to state a claim.

The Plaintiff should not use access, provided to him as a result of Federal Law, to sustain a pattern of behavior did not for which he seeks to profit under a common law cause of action. More importantly, every local Court would establish a different standard, making an impossible mess for airlines to comply with. The "Good Faith" standard applied by the Circuit Court does not have a clear meaning. With 24 complaints and his constantly seeking compensation, did the Rabbi act in good faith? If the Rabbi had acted in good faith, then it can be reasonably presumed NW would have wanted to continue selling their services to the Plaintiff.

Just curious for those who know, does this Rabbi's church agree to let him use his professional title in the pursuit of monetary claims? The title is clearly being used to convey some greater authority or credibility. I did not read anywhere that he intends to donate the $5,000,000 plus other compensation he demands to his church, or charity.

http://www.vosizneias.com/88724/2011...rthwest-delta/Note in case a Rabbi wants to sue me - i'm no attorney and edited this from my phone, JMHO.