all I questioned was your assertion that one is LEGALLY BOUND to pay for the distance travelled,
I did not contest your legal opinion, vince. You may be right on that. In fact my emphasis there was on the ethical part, not legal part. My following argument was to show that your interpretation (legal/regulatory/contract) of what I said notwithstanding, my point of sticking to EITHER law(/regulation/contract)-to-the-letter OR fairness still stands. I hope this is clear.