|
|
| Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested (1445793) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 00:00:36 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Aug 6 21:02:10 2017. No it does not. The ticket to 125th is not valid on a train with an "R" at 125th.The minute they let you board, your ticket becomes valid. It is the same as trying to use an off peak ticket on a peak train. No, it isn't. It's clearly established that there are separate peak and off-peak fares, and it's quite clear which trains are which. If you board a peak train, you pay the peak fare. I've been using a restaurant as a metaphor which is quite fitting— restaurants often have lunch specials, which is equivalent to an off-peak fare. So if I say entrees are $8 at lunch at $12 at dinner and you show up for dinner and order one entree, you are expected to pay $12— you can't pay $8 just because that price is listed on the lunch menu. However, if you order one entree and I present you with a check for $24 on the grounds that there's a two-entree minimum, you are expected to pay $12. While the agreed-upon price of a service can vary based on time of day, you cannot be billed for services not requested or rendered. Now, if I were quite insistent on a two-entree minimum, I could require you to pay in advance for two entrees before seating you. However, if I seat you and serve you, I have committed to receive payment only for the services I actually rendered. That said a good solution that would make a lot of people happy (for outbound trips at least) would be a situation where the first 2 cars are closed until 125th, then they open only those cars at 125th. That would be pointless and obnoxious. Why go jump through hoops just to deliberately make things difficult for a small group of passengers? Everyone boarding at 125th gets a fresh shot at good seats and people trying your bullshit take an hourlong detour to Connecticut, and get to meet with MTA police if they do not pay for the ride (to avoid people using this to get discounted rides to Stamford). They already paid for the ride to 125th. The ride to Mount Vernon (or Stamford) was unsolicited, so they can't be charged for it. In fact, they could legitimately demand the MTA provide them with a free ride back to 125th. The fact that the MTA took active measures to prevent you from exiting the train at your station indicates bad faith; there's no way they can send you to Connecticut against your will and then bill you for the trip. You're trying to argue a dud point— as a matter of law, it simply isn't theft of service to refuse to pay for service you never asked for and didn't receive. If you board a train to 125th and pay for a trip to 125th, you have not broken any law. There is no way that a conductor or the MTA can compel you to pay for a trip other than the one you actually took (and by forcing you to take a longer trip, they risk forfeiting any right to be paid at all). |
|
|
|