Originally Posted by
Often1
LH did not sue for its losses, it sued to enforce its contract. If it's contract had been better written (and perhaps on appeal it will be found to have been written perfectly well). the contract would have called for OP to pay the price for the new route flown. Thus, if he purchased A-B-C and dropped B-C, his ticket is repriced to A-B. If that is more than A-C, he owes the difference.
The entire argument about loss is irrelevant.
As I read the judgment (and my German is pretty good but not 100% fluent") that is exactly what LH did sue for i.e. the fare difference. More importantly they were found entitled to succeed on that claim, as their T&C did allow them to do so, and the terms was not so unusual as to be unenforceable in a contract containing standard terms. So LH actually won the point of principle. However, they lost the case because - ironically - they were unable to provide sufficient evidence as to what the fare would have been, on the relevant date, for the flights actually flown.
Am I the only person who read the judgment that way ?