Expressed a desire to take the dogs with you in the passenger compartment
The Munich defendant had commissioned the travel agency to arrange a trip over New Year’s Eve 2021 from Munich via Zurich to Dubai for themselves, their three family members traveling with them and their two Chihuahuas. When booking, the defendant expressly informed the employee in the travel agency that the dogs were to travel in the passenger compartment during the flight. None of those involved were aware that, according to the regulations of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), all pets traveling to Dubai must be transported as declared cargo and may not be taken in either the passenger compartment or the cargo hold of the passenger aircraft. When the family showed up at Munich Airport, they were told at the counter – without further explanation – that the dogs from Zurich were not registered in the cabin. The family took the flight to Zurich anyway. It was only there that the defendant was informed that, in principle, no animals were allowed to enter Dubai by air in passenger planes. The defendant then canceled the onward flight from Zurich to Dubai.
Court decides in favor of the family
The travel agency now sued for payment of the flight tickets and the agency fee of EUR 3,743.20, the defendant applied for the suit to be dismissed and asserted costs of EUR 194.88 for the canceled trip by way of a counterclaim. The claim of the travel agency was dismissed by the AG, the counterclaim by the defendant was successful. First of all, the court found that the costs incurred by the plaintiff for the four flight tickets plus the agency fee were not expenses within the meaning of the § 670 BGB acts which the[Seller]could consider necessary for the purpose of carrying out the order. The travel agency was commissioned to arrange flights for the defendant, her family and her two Chihuahas, which would allow the animals to travel in the passenger compartment throughout the flight. In this respect, the defendant credibly demonstrated that the fact that the dogs were traveling in the passenger compartment was the decisive reason why she booked the flights through the travel agency and not herself via the Internet. According to the court, the employee of the travel agency also confirmed that the focus was on the cabin transport of the dogs from the beginning.
No claim for reimbursement of expenses due to legal impossibility
The employee of the plaintiff was therefore aware that the order not only related to the brokerage of flight tickets, but was clearly determined by the special request that the animals be allowed in the cabin. Therefore, after careful examination of the circumstances known to her, she should never have concluded or mediated the contract of carriage with the airline and should have paid out the ticket prices as expenses, the court continued. Because according to IATA regulations, all pets traveling to Dubai must be transported as declared cargo. Since entry to Dubai with pets in the passenger compartment was legally impossible from the outset and this was not clarified by the travel agency in advance, the payment of the ticket prices was not suitable, necessary and in reasonable proportion to the pursuit of the purpose of the order, so that a claim for reimbursement of expenses does not exist .
Infringement of duty to provide information and advice
On the other hand, the district court upheld the counterclaim and ruled that the plaintiff, for her part, had fulfilled her obligations under the travel agency contract § 280 Abs. 1 BGB hurt. Because the employee of the travel agency did not clarify without a doubt whether dogs are allowed in the passenger compartment on all route sections to Dubai before booking the flight, the plaintiff violated her obligation to provide information and advice. The court further ruled that the defendant did not look at the damage and in breach of its duty to mitigate the damage § 254 Abs. 1 BGB had caused himself. Because she was not informed in Munich that the dogs are not allowed to travel to Dubai in the passenger compartment for legal reasons and that the flight, as desired, was therefore not possible from the start.
to AG Munich, judgment of 02.05.2023 – 114 C 8563/22
Editorial beck-aktuell, Gitta Kharraz, 16. May 2023.