Originally Posted by
mmff
Taking into account that he paid for the ticket and the rules of the airline allowed unlimited rebookings, I cannot see how anyone could prosecute him for inventory spoilage.
I cannot even understand how a court could rule in favor of LH in this whole case. The passenger was following the rules set by the airline and had a fully flexible (and very expensive) ticket.
If LH does not like its own rules and policy, the solution is quite simple: change them. Until then, rules are rules and this passenger did not break any.
German law is governed by a good faith principle and not only by the good or bad language of terms and conditions.
We frequently see this cultural difference here on FT when we talk about strange language detriment to the customer in some hotels' or airlines' GTCs in Germany we do not care too much such language, since these clauses are most likely void. Anglosaxon, in particular US posters however have an enormous belief in the power of such language.
The same is true here: The customer did not break any written rule, he acted however against the principles of good faith because he exploited the system. This is not against the written rules but against the spirit of mother contract.
Being a German and a US lawyer, I more than frequently come across this cultural gap. In general, the customer/consumer gets into a far better position under the "fairness" argument. Here it turns around the other way: the consumer obviously behaved unfair and it is fair that he needs to pay extra for all the potatoe salad and the access to the lounge.