Originally Posted by
Flying Lawyer
I am suggesting that the court held he is liable for damages because he breached the contract by rebooking 35 times. This was the basis to make him pay for his lounge visits..
The situation is interesting and it shows the failure or bias of the court in two crucial points:
- so there is an upper limit of changes and lounge visits LH intended. Which is it and why was it not deducted from the # of over-uses?
- LH sold the pax a product and he used it in the wrong way in the eyes of the court. How can the cost then be higher than the selling price of the ticket? If anything, should the price not be capped at the agreed and paid price? There must be a considerable wrong-doing on behalf of LH that the damage is larger than the sold price and still the court acts along with the silly notion that the pax used more than was offered to him, ignoring that all these services were offered to him voluntarily.