Air travel case

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The air travel case (also air travel case or air travel decision) is a decision of the Federal Court of Justice from 1971, which was included in the official collection (BGHZ 55, 128), is used as a legal textbook case and is still important for jurisprudence today.

case

After a flight from Munich to Hamburg with transit passengers without a ticket, a minor got on board an airplane bound for New York . There he was refused entry. The airline had the minor sign a declaration of payment and transported him back to Munich. The mother, as legal representative, refused to authorize legal transactions that the minor had concluded with the airline. The airline asked the minor to pay for both flights.

decision

According to the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice, the airline is entitled to the asserted claims as a result.

Outward flight

Contractual Claims

A contract through offer and acceptance was not concluded. An implied conclusion of a contract is also out of the question, as the airline (possibly different in local public transport ) only wants to transport people with a ticket from the outset, and not everyone who gets on the plane. In addition, the 17-year-old minor could not effectively commit himself without the consent of the legal representative. This also applies if the controversial and generally rejected factual contract is seen as a possible basis for a claim, because here too the protection of minors has priority.

Tort claims

The claims for damages from § § 823 ff. BGB exist according to the reason, but are ruled out because the airline has not suffered any damage . Taking the minor with you did not result in any individually quantifiable additional costs. Since the aircraft was not fully booked, no passenger had to be turned back, so that the company did not miss any profit . Damage due to additional fuel or food consumed was not reported, but could theoretically be considered.

Claims under the law of enrichment

The minor must, however, reimburse the value of the flight according to § 812 , § 818 Paragraph 2 BGB. He has obtained the Hamburg-New York transport service (disputed, another view assumes an interference, as a conscious admission to the flight is only made for passengers with a ticket) from the airline. The Supreme Court discussed the question of whether the minor has ever achieved something and looks to what was acquired in the financial benefit by the expenses saved; today, a factual view has prevailed, according to which incorporeal advantages can also be "obtained".

However, on the one hand this is a so-called luxury expense for the minor, on the other hand he could be depleted by the return transport to Munich, since he no longer has any advantage from his flight to New York, § 818 Abs. 3 BGB. However, due to Section 819 of the German Civil Code, the minor is still liable because he knew that he would receive the benefit without any legal reason. In the context of § 819 BGB, because of the similarity to the offense (arg. § 828 BGB, here at the same time the offense of stealth transport), according to the Federal Court of Justice, the knowledge of the minor and not that of the legal guardian should be taken into account. This is disputed by a different opinion, which is based on the knowledge of the parents for reasons of the protection of minors.

Return flight

Contractual Claims

Claims from the contract are ruled out because the minor could not effectively conclude a contract even by signing the declaration of payment obligation and the parents did not approve the pending ineffective contract.

Claims from management without a mandate

The airline has a claim against the minor from management without an order. The repatriation business, which was also foreign to others, was in the objective interest and thus also corresponded to the presumed will of the legal representatives, whose will is to be taken into account, since the minor was threatened with imprisonment at the airport. However, even if the applicability is rejected, the same result is reached, since it is probably not the minor's will to stay in the transit area of ​​New York Airport.

reception

The case was in the past and is still the subject of legal discourse on management without commission and for unjustified enrichment. The same applies to the commentary literature.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ as described for example by Harder in: NJW 1990, 857, Hau in: NJW 2001, 2863 and Fielenbach NZV 2000, 358.
  2. ↑ so Meyer in: NJW 2015, 3686, 3690.
  3. ↑ so Stacke in: NJW 1991, 875.
  4. ↑ See NJW 1971, 609.
  5. ↑ See NJW 1971, 609.
  6. ↑ See Harder in: NJW 1990, 857, fn. 8.
  7. ↑ See Schmitt in: Munich Commentary on the BGB, 7th edition 2015, § 105 BGB, Rn. 25th
  8. ↑ See BGH NJW 1971, 609, 610.
  9. ↑ on today's view cf. Stadler in: Jauernig, Commentary on the BGB, 16th edition 2015, § 818, Rn. 12.
  10. ↑ On the dispute cf. Stadler in: Jauernig, Commentary on the BGB, 16th edition 2015, § 819, Rn. 5.
  11. ↑ On the arguments of the BGH cf. BGH NJW 1971, 609, 612.
  12. ↑ according to Seiler in: Seiler Munich Commentary on the BGB, 6th edition 2012, § 682, marginal no. 7, fn. 15 “General opinion”.
  13. ↑ For example, see above in the references to the description of the case.

Web links