You're raising a real contract-law issue: why isn't an airline required to mitigate damages after a passenger cancels a non-refundable ticket?

The short answer is: because airline tickets are usually treated under special rules, and the "non-refundable" price is considered part of the bargain — not a damage claim that must be mitigated.

In ordinary contract law (especially common law), if someone breaches a contract, the injured party generally has a duty to mitigate damages. For example, if you cancel a hotel room and the hotel resells the room, it usually cannot charge you the full amount because it avoided the loss.

Airlines argue that tickets are different because:

1. A non-refundable fare is a specific pricing product

You didn't buy a guaranteed seat that can always be resold; you bought a fare with restrictions in exchange for a lower price.

The airline takes on the risk that the seat might go empty.

2. The airline claims the "loss" happens at the time of cancellation

They argue they planned around that booking: staffing, aircraft planning, inventory control, and fare buckets.

If they later sell the seat, they say that is separate revenue, not a reduction of your contractual obligation.

3. Airlines use tariff/fare rules

Many jurisdictions allow airlines to set non-refundable terms as long as they are disclosed.

Courts have often treated these as agreed liquidated terms rather than ordinary breach damages.

That said, your argument is not irrational. Some legal scholars and consumer advocates argue that if the airline actually resells the seat, keeping 100% of the original fare creates a windfall. A few areas of law (especially some consumer-protection regimes) have pushed toward more fairness, but there is generally no universal rule forcing airlines to refund a resold non-refundable ticket.

A key distinction: if you cancel voluntarily, airlines usually have the strongest position. If the airline cancels or significantly changes the flight, many jurisdictions require refunds because the situation is different.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5888308&forum_id=2...#50038540)

I wan ask one question. Why una no dey apply duty to mitigate damages for una non-refundable tickets?

If person cancel ticket before flight, and una fit still sell that same seat to another passenger, why passenger still lose all the money? E be like una fit collect money from the first person and still collect money again from the second person wey buy the same seat.

I just dey ask because I wan understand how una policy work and why this principle no apply for this kind situation.

Thank you, and I go appreciate your explanation.

Tenki well well

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5888308&forum_id=2...#50038714)