Originally Posted by
weero
So when LH asks for 745 EUR for this walking distance flight because it holds a monopoly then that's free market. But if a customer finds a valid loophole in the airline's offerings then violates some cryptic part of an agreement.
I wonder how the judges came up with the insight that the customer had no intention to fly .. ever. I bet not more than 3 minutes have been spent on that assessment.
Comsidering thst the guy rebooked 35 times on a single ticket and obviously travelled to the airport 35 times, went to security, ate potatoe salad and left again, there might be prima facies evidence that he either went sick because of the salad or never intended to fly. Since he obviously said nothing about illness the only other conclusion is that he never intended to fly.
And once again, procedural law. If LH pleaded that he never intended to fly and derives at such conclusion based on a set of facts (rebooked 35 times, changed 35 times while being at the airport last minute, never intended to got to Zurich) and the defendant fails in doing both, explaing such behaviour and contesting LH's allegation, then the court will rightfully accept this as given facts.