Grog

You can step back from a LH flight as the doors are closing and still get all portions refunded on a refundable ticket. (Well, at least I can, and have, on a few occasions.)

Football Fan

Well, you already have. And you need to, because otherwise your legal opinion does not hold water, as your failure to be able to address the fact that there was no misrepresentation and no error shows, based on the report of the OP.

Grog

I may have misinterpreted the reference to it as well. Thanks for clearing it up

P.S. I'm thinkin' Kevinsac fulfilled his contractual obligations as well. It's not been sufficiently stated otherwise. Fraud, smaud. Zwei dicke Daumen nach oben. The judge that would rule otherwise would most likely have stock in LH.

Flying Lawyer

Why do you always feel a necessity to use agressive language. Typical trial lawyer. There is not need for it. We are discussing.

I will start with the original post and in a nutshell and not with the later amendments the story underwent and leave out the unimportant details and will for sure not include your or my less or more polite judgemental remarks:

Agree that this is the original story in a nutshell? (allthough you would not get in a lounge with just a ticket and no BP) and I am sure my students will love the closing remark "Many ways to skin a LH cat".

Airsicknessbag

Interesting legal discussion you're having there. Enjoyed reading it.


>>>But I promise you, I will present the case either to my students or when I sit next time on the panel in the second exam.

Oh my god, you're one of THEM?!? I hate you!

Anyway, having been in that dreadful situation not too long ago, I would have answered the following:

Fraud or not, could it be a case of aiding and abetting the ticket agent's and lounge wardens' respective breaches of trust?



Oh, and my company charges daily rates for me, not hourly ones, yet I hope I'm still qualified to participate

Flying Lawyer

^^ - creative idea - lets start a new discussion on that topic.

Airsicknessbag

Aw, "creative", means the candidate is precluded from anything above six points because his idea is nowhere to be found on the streamlined solution to the case

Don't have my Troendle/Fischer with me right now, so I'm kind of "flying blind". But in any case we're moving in circles around the central question:

Do you actually need to have the intention to fly or just the contractual right to do so in order to be eligible for lounge access as per the access rules stipulated in (presumably) the TOS?

Flying Lawyer

Agreed. And I believe there is a third alternative: Do you only have the contractual right of access under the condition that you (at least) plan to fly.

Football Fan

I'm actually not a trial lawyer. And I don't think my language is aggressive. I am sticking to the facts and we are having a discussion on whether the OP's behavior constituted fraud or not, which you wrongly claimed. Oh, and how do you categorize your remarks about "increasing the professional indemnity insurance" which actually prompted me to point out why exactly, based on the facts reported, your legal assessment was incorrect?


No, this is not the story. You are leaving out the most important part, which is the fact that the OP reported that he fully disclosed his intention to return the ticket both to the ticket agent and the lounge warden, and which prevents this from being fraud.

In other words, you are leaving out facts so that they fit your premature assessment of the case.

You should use all facts available to you. You cannot just selectively take some of the report of the OP and leave out the rest, just so that your incorrect accusation of fraud could possibly stand.

MichaelFFM

time to have my coming out as a criminal on this, too...

Actually, I've done a pretty similar thing a few times already...

Located very close to FRA ( max. 15 min by car ), I sometimes use an open 'C' ticket FRA-XXX I use to have on my ETIX database for espacially that purpose, to gain access to sterile areas and lounges, whenver a client or a friend of mine connects through my 'home base'.

And in my case, I have to admit, it's - more or less - double the fraud, cause I scam both security, passport control and the dragons / LH.

Another reason for insomnia ?

D-AIPD

I do not advise in criminal matters (and you wouldn't either, Flying Lawyer, would you...). Initially, I would have concurred with your legal reasoning (leaving aside the amendments made to the facts of the OP). I do tend to the opposite now, considering the wording of the lounge access rules.

But let me ask this: What - prescription set aside - would put the OP's revelations into the grey (or black), while your above revelation shouldn’t hurt your record? Would you assume that a criminal court would accept that subtle wording of "changing plans" when voiced in a context like above? You basically did the same, and even on a regular basis – albeit with the finesse of a lawyer.

Anyway, valid case for any exam, and a welcome change to those questions asked by nutty old-style judges on such things as divorce procedures. ^

Flying Lawyer

This is not part of the original story, it was only added later after some folks began beating up the OP.

But it even makes the case more interesting because one can discuss whether acting in concert with a mala fide employee (or subcontractor) is a possible way to get away with criminal charges. (BTW: I only remember the disclosure to the TA, not to the lounge agent). Anyway: I would not think so, the TA is not Lufty. Airsicknessbag had some quite good ideas.

Flying Lawyer

Of course I did, and at this age with the finesse of a student. But: You can make it easy or difficult for a judge. And as we are talking about "intentions", it is very easy for the judge if you admit your intentions and difficult if not. It is not an issue about fact but about making evidence of facts. I do not blame the OP, I only explain what I would not say.

DownUnderFlyer

This just confirms to me why I went into business and did not bother to study law. At least there a balance sheet tells you the truth and never leaves room for any interpretation.......
The question within FT should not really be whether something is legal according to German, Norwegian or any other law but whether we as a communicty feel that this is acceptable.

Monet01

I´ve never seen lawyers fighting so intensively for no money - nevertheless almost every state attorney would drop this case and put the big red "minima non curat praetor" stamp on the document