Originally Posted by
travelkid
For the record, do you at all accept that there could be IDB compensastion in others situations than overbooking?
I love your rhetorical and pedagogical way. I have no doubt that you are a good teacher/lecturer^
But then you should neither avoid specific question to yourself in the same manner. Its now repeated.
And please elaborate further on your reply. Who will then have the burden of proof, and more importantly, how can the passenger prove anything.
Originally Posted by
Flying Lawyer
Well, my law school is in Germany and I am a law school lecturer, too. So maybe I am a bit older than your name Travelkid propoes.
On internet anyone can be a kid, a lawyer or Pamela Andersson. My nick has partly different meanings in my language. I also have more than 20 years experience dealing with legal professionals etc, but irrelevant as such. However I dont want anyone to take what I say because of who I am, but rather for its pure content- if any.
Originally Posted by
Flying Lawyer
With all respect, I believe it is you who has either never taken the lessons or missed them. Unfortunately your legal evaluation is too general and appears to be copied from a consumer magazine.
You make the same mistakes my first year students tend to make: Simple put the burden of proof on somebody without analyzing the language of the contract.
Lessons missed or not, here you reveal some of them. The burden of proof in my statements are based on EU law, not the contract- which I guess you agree can be overruled by EU regulations?
In a pure contractual matter its pretty basic you need to prove what you claim (as a separate discussion, what is prove? Not as in criminal case, but a mere 50%+ probability). But remember there are many law areas where actually the burden of proof is on the other part, no? Opposite burden of proof (in lack of better terms, please correct me, as Im not too familar with english language of law).
Im not sure if its me or you that is too general. I dont see where you are specific, and use the terms in the EU regulation, but I actually do that.
If copied from a consumer magazine, then even better, as it would indicate that researched people on the subject have reached my conclusions as well, while yours seem to be very general *the OP should have blah blah and is to blame*.
Originally Posted by
Flying Lawyer
Your are right: "What is relevant is the principle of burden of proof." We agree on that. However, you fail to define what has to be proven.
So lets go through this step by step. The customer signs a contract that entitles him to transportation:
- of the the pax nn presentation of the ticket
- of up to 20 kg of checked baggage
- of up to 8 kg of hand luggage.
Agreed?
Yes. But add the t&c allowing some personal items. Clearly important here.
Originally Posted by
Flying Lawyer
If so, it is the pax who claims, who demands something. And as a very general principle of law the claimant is required to proof his entitlement. So if you are at the gate and the agent refuses to accept your luggage you need to proof that your luggage was within the contractual limits and that the agent/airline breached contract. You demand something, you need to proof.
I guess you by now know my point of view on EU-law vs obligation law.