I don't think any judge will believe your story that your 3yo son picked up the phone to M&M, and booked an award using his M&M number and his PIN code, and using the overdraft.

SmilingBoy.

At least the 3yr old one can not enter into the contract alone, means take any flight without the approval of the authority (i.e. parents). There is a minimum age (12 or 14 IIRC) for this.

i am away for a few days and look at the excitement in this thread! :D

why must a judge beleive his story? lufti or m-&-l must sue the son first, yes? father is not responsible for illegal contract between son and m-&-l.

Here it is. there is too much thinking here and too many to try to think ethic and legality at the same time and we see every day that these two words are not partners!

look at gerhard schröder and a fat-paying russian job even when he is previous german chancellor and made decisions favorable to his now-employer and against poland when he was active. now he earn 500K a year of dirty money and also he receives a german government retirement! and allow himself to now insult the german government for how they talk about russia now! haha. or look at oskar lafontaine and his retirement after federal work of a few weeks, the list is endless. law and ethic are two animals in different zoos.

ok, i am finished for now. my post becomes too long. :D

Nice story OT, indeed. :rolleyes:

But the marked part is entirely wrong. ;)

Agree. And one doesn't have to be a lawyer to know that.

i am glad you like it. and you are never OT? :confused: and this thread is not almost all OT now? if i insulted your political party with the truth it was not my intention.

when my child misbehaves, i am responsible but not when it is an enduring contract? i do not beleive i am wrong with my little knowledge, but with guidance from you and andre1970 i can maybe learn someday how it is wrong?

this is one source of info for children and contracts for us simple people: http://www.learnline.de/angebote/jug...dgeschaeft.htm

I don't care about a political party and in particular I don't care about the GAZ Gerd. :D

But you are right, I am never ever even a bit OT. Never!!! :p :D

Regarding the 3yr old child: Any business such a child performs is null and void ("nichtig"). If it comes however to the situation, that the child checks in for a flight (based on the null and void action, not detected by either the airline or the parents) the permission of the parent is automatically given then (No airline would allow a 3yr old child to checkin without parent permission). That process finally transfers responsibility of the entire contract to the parent. I am not a lawyer, but this is common sense as a parent.

Ahem ... the child is actually represented by the father in your scenario - so LH would in fact have to sue the child if they wanted money for the "overdraft" (but, IMOH, would probably not win for entirely different reasons).

Woulda, coulda, shoulda... :D

I guess the only way we will ever know is:

Lets try each scenario and share our experience ;)

Just the problem that some people here have such a high account balance that this might be difficult.

I try to keep mine just in the range of the awards I want to book, except there is a promotion that pumps "a bit" in :) Before I drop to FTL in MAR 09 remind me on this little game @:-)

No the father takes over responsibilty automatically, due to allowing to step into this contract.

But we are discussing BS here honestly. The entire scenario with a 3yr child taking the overdraft as a contract partner of LH is pure nonsense.

Every three year old can be party to a contract, the parents have power of attorney under German law, sec. 1629 BGB. Bertheike, pls. do not convey such nonsense which sounds like the result of "Rechtskundeunterricht" in primary school. However, even if your thoughts would be correct (what they are not), your three year old would have never become a member of M&M, because signing up is certainly a contract.

OK, I just read LHstatus's link. Lots of words but quite interesting. Sounds like a child can be party to a contract, but only if it brings advantages to the child, and no disadvantages. I'm no rocket scientist, but a bill sent to a child demanding money for an unreturned mileage balance sounds like a disadvantage. @:-)

Your interpretation is one of the reason the world needs lawyers. The bullet point list in LHstatus' link is not a linked with logical "ands" but logical "ors": Kids can be a party to every contract if the parents or the relevant court consent or (not: AND) if these kids can pay with their pocket moneay or (not: AND) the contract is just an advantage or (not: AND) the kids are party to a labour contract entered into with parental consent and such contract is a consequence of the labour contract. Under each of these four circumstances the contract is binding for the kid.

If the parents have consented to the kid taking an overdraft the loan contract is certainly binding for the kid. If not, tough luck. And bertheike's three year old has certainly not called the service hotline himself....

:)
 

maybe this 3 year old is a flyertalk addict too :)

some people here are whining now because they thought they are smarter than LH :)

so remember, all this miles and point are nice but its not a game!

if you do something you always have to calculate the risk being caught.

if you dont want to pay just ignore, change your adress to china and never look back again.


dp

With all due respect, if you are purporting to dispense legal advice, please make sure you are correct! What you said is true ... with respect to minors 7 years and older. Regarding a three-year old, the only way that person can enter into a contract is if he/she is represented by her/his parents.

And I'm with SOG - this part is very academic indeed.