The flight travel case  (also flight travel case  or flight 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 used today for jurisprudence matters.
After a flight from Munich to Hamburg with transit passengers without a license, a minor got on board an aircraft bound for New York . There he was refused entry. The airline had the minor sign a payment obligation 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. 
According to the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice, the airline is entitled to the claims made in the result. 
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 still 17-year-old minor could not effectively undertake 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. 
The claims for damages from § BGB exist in principle, but are ruled out because the airline has no 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 additionally consumed fuel or food was not presented, but could theoretically be considered. [8th]ff.
However, the minor must reimburse the value of the flight in accordance with financial benefit by the expenses saved; Today, a factual view has prevailed, according to which incorporeal advantages can also be "obtained". , Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code. He has obtained the Hamburg-New York transport service (disputed, another view assumes an interference, since 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
However, on the one hand this is a so-called luxury expenditure 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, Abs. 3 BGB. The minor is nevertheless liable because of German Civil Code (BGB) because he knew that he would receive the benefit without any legal reason. In the context of BGB, due to the similarity to the crime (arg. BGB, in this case at the same time an offense of creeping transport), according to the opinion of the Federal Court of Justice, on the knowledge of the minor and not that of the legal guardian. This is disputed by a different opinion, which is based on the knowledge of the parents for reasons of the protection of minors.
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 well-foreign business of return transportation was in the objective interest and thus corresponded to the presumed will of the legal representatives, must be based on their will is,  because the minor was threatened with detention 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.
The case was in the past and continues to be the subject of legal discourse on management without commission and for unjustified enrichment.  The same applies to the commentary literature.
- as described for example by Harder in: NJW 1990, 857, Hau in: NJW 2001, 2863 and Fielenbach NZV 2000, 358.
- so Meyer in: NJW 2015, 3686, 3690.
- so Stacke in: NJW 1991, 875.
- Vgl. NJW 1971, 609.
- Vgl. NJW 1971, 609.
- Vgl. Harder in: NJW 1990, 857, Fn. 8.
- See Schmitt in: Munich Commentary on the BGB, 7th edition 2015, § 105 BGB, Rn. 25th
- Vgl. BGH NJW 1971, 609, 610.
- on today's view cf. Stadler in: Jauernig, Commentary on the BGB, 16th edition 2015, § 818, Rn. 12.
- On the dispute cf. Stadler in: Jauernig, Commentary on the German Civil Code, 16th edition 2015, § 819, Rn. 5.
- Zur Argumentation des BGH vgl. BGH NJW 1971, 609, 612.
- according to Seiler in: Seiler Munich Commentary on the BGB, 6th edition 2012, § 682, Rn. 7, fn. 15 “General opinion”.
- For example, see above under the evidence for the designation of the case.