My point is that I expect they are within their rights to offer to transport you to the destination by another means and if you refuse give you a refund. There was no need for a lesson in contract law based on the refund only option which I never alluded to!
I agree with you. I apologise that this forum has a habit of 'talking among ourselves' and wandering into other matters which are of little or no help to the OP. I hope you can find something of assistance in these wanderings. I'm sorry if there isn't.
It should be noted that Scots law only applies to railway tickets if purchased in Scotland for a journey wholly within Scotland. Glasgow to Euston will come under the law of England and Wales.
Really?
That looks familiar to me from the determination of jurisdiction by parties to RSP Ltd.
Here is what I found when quickly researching a Contract between Megatrain (Stagecoach Group plc registered in Perth) and an online customer:
in the event of any dispute, the relevant parties shall irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Scottish Courts.
However, the English Courts are always happy to be asked to consider matters brought to their attention from other Jurisdictions! Parties must either accept the Jurisdiction as stated in the clause, or, choose another body of Law. The Courts will accept that Arbitration and Jurisdiction are separable (though Mediation and Jurisdiction are not). ["After Mediation, you wouldn't want the conclusion accepted in Mediation to be voided by a change in the body of Law" - Longmore LJ 2012]
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If a consumer purchases a "normal" Advance ticket six weeks in advance of the date of travel, they do so with the expectation that this will allow them to travel from A to B for less than the cost of a walk-up ticket.
I hesitate to accept that we are discussing "a consumer".
Their expectations may be many and varied. So what? Please confine your presumptions to Terms in the Contract.
The Megabus example is even worse. The OP buys a £1.50 Megatrain ticket . . . Megabus pull out of the contract . . . . so the OP now needs to purchase an Off-Peak single at £73.20.
What leads us to conclude that the OP "needs to" do anything that is, or is wholly necessitated by complying with, a Term of the Contract with Megatrain?
If the answer to either of those questions is "yes," what is the point of the consumer entering into either contract in the first place, seeing as . . . . .
Perhaps it is an expectation, common in the market place, that the offer is an attractive one, and that the risks are acceptable? I'm not sure what our assessments of another person's market choices might tell us. We are all permitted to enter into Contracts which others, or ourselves at another time, might consider to follow from 'poor choices'.
I'll assume from the style of your post, based on the fact that it follows from a repetition of mine in its entireity, that you were not pleased by my analysis.
That, I can understand. Someone buying a ticket at far below the open market price from a rail operator might have some apprehension that 'the apparent bargain' is not all that it seems, and yet still feel dissapointment when the less welcome conditions of 'the apparent bargain' become effective.
That, too, I can understand.
But I wonder if you thought that I had made an error in my analysis. Have I, and if so, where?