I'm not going to put in for an FOI request to see the percentages..
Im not really fussed by the percentages and you did raise the point, so without any concrete evidence, I think its very difficult to establish whose right or wrong.
they'll look at past history. you think they won't take into account prior history either?
so what if they looked at past history and find that everything was in order. that only serves to reinforce my argument that everything on the flight in question was not. Next would be why not and soon after that would come, plaintiff received XYZ on previous flights which he came to expect as that is what the respondent has provided previously and does so currently, therefore plaintiff did not receive the same product as the respondent would normally offer, breach upheld!!
I've done 4 flights on 744's in the last 12 months. none were dirty. Will happily travel in one tomorrow if i had the chance
So would I... if it was clean!!
so all companies must do everything 100% of the time or they can be sued? that's what you are claiming here. as i have tried to point out, you have an isolated case. there is no systematic failure here. you are basically saying if it isn't done 100% right all of the time, someone can sue.
umm yeah, thats exactly what i'm saying. When you have a contract, you are legally required to execute the contract in its entirety and not the bits and pieces you choose to. When they don't, they are required to remedy the fault, and I have and continue to give Qantas the opportunity to do that, but if they don't, then I will seek the assistance of the courts in having the matter resolved.
and where have I mentioned your finacial situation? I am merely pointing out where it costs everyone in the long run.
im not saying you did. quite the contrary. Big companies with deep pockets often engage in protracted, expensive, vexatious litigation to subdue or harass a lesser party. I was just highlighting the fact that my pockets are no where near as deep as those of Qantas and so me taking them to court on one occasion can not be classed as vexatious, as I do not have the financial means to engage in such behaviour.
And what does that do to us?? insurance premiums rise as a result! things end up costing more because of a few simple minded idiots. And how much of the $640,000 did she get and what did the lawyers get? you cannot for a minute believe that this case was worthy of going to court for any reason? Do you also know that many of these cases are also lost on appeal too?
well im sorry, but i cant be held responsible for those matters by taking Qantas to court. I do get that you were offering a generalisation, and I actually agree with you on this point.
as for how much of the $640,000 the lady got, i have no idea, but that was the published settlement. Whilst I agree with you that, IMO, the case was not worthy of going to court, it clearly WAS, because it was successful, both in the first instance and on appeal. So all im trying to highlight here, is that despite something looking black and white to you or I, the Law is not always about right and wrong, but rather who's lawyer argues better, and that works in both directions. Guilty parties get off and innocent ones Dont.
So whilst you're all entitled to your own opinions, don't count your chickens before they've hatched.
IF the matter gets to court, ill let you know the outcome. But that is not my preferred method of resolving this issue.