Jetstar loses in court (to me!)

[medhead]

Some of you are almost as rude as jetstar. To those who say 'thanks for nothing 'I say no problem, glad you feel that way. I certainly dont owe you anything so Id say that makes us about square. For a new member to be called a liar upon first joining this forum says more about your forum than it does about me I'm afraid. Maybe Ive come to the wrong place to share a true account. To everyone else, thanks and sorry I cant give you all the answers you want, I hope you now understand. good luck

Sam
No one has called you a lair. We have just been very sceptical due to the lack of information you provided.

Certainly you do not owe us anything. But then we didn't ask you for anything. You made a choice and volunteered to come on here and offer us something. That is a commendable choice and thank you very much.

However, the unfortunate situation is that what you have offered does not provide all the information that is required for us to understand or make use what you offer.

When a few people pointed out that we need more information to make use of your experience you then made another choice to not respond with the extra information but instead you choose to respond in a different manner.

I'm a new member of this forum myself, but usually accounts such as yours are welcomed, when people are able to understand why you had your success and can then apply that learning to their own situation. I certainly can't understand why you can't share the basis for your win.

 

[Platy]

Sam
No one has called you a lair. We have just been very sceptical due to the lack of information you provided...

Yes, Medhead, the OP wasn't directly called a liar, but BS was invoked by another poster in less than 3 hours of the origination of this thread followed by a couple of posts of similar demeaning "jocularity".

I can understand why someone new to the forum would take offence.

IMHO there has been a worrying pattern of new posters being "ridiculed" on this forum.

 

[vt]

I certainly can't understand why you can't share the basis for your win.

He cant share maybe cause it didnt happen?

Its small claims, no gag order and the case is finalised. Yet he is saying that he cannot comment.

Cannot comment? Why?

SAM I AM

You are entitled to share what you will, but if your going to come onto the forum and say you won, people would like to know why.

How would you feel if we all talked of getting status on AA yet wont tell you how to do it? You'd probably ask how it is done. A very reasonable request. Same as the forum asking how you did it.

Making such comments about the forum is uncalled for. I've bumped heads with Medhead before, but we both come to this forum to get or share information. Thats what we're asking.

Again, can you share the particulars of the case?

 

[Platy]

People are naturally cautious when they see these sort of posts because all too frequently it's someone on a mission and have nothing useful to really say.

IMHO opinion there is a difference between expressing caution and rudeness.

Personally, I find it interesting that such a case can be brought forward and potentially won, so don't agree that there is "nothing useful to say"

I would also find it disappointing should people feel it is OK to be rude or ridicule someone or question their integrity because they don't subjectively feel the post is useful enough, or is expressing frustration over an event or supplier.

 

[Platy]

He cant share maybe cause it didnt happen?
....Cannot comment? Why?

Er, maybe there's no great mystery or secret here - if Jetstar failed to defend, maybe the case was won by default without tyhe need for proof of points such as actual arrival time???

 

[vt]

Er, maybe there's no great mystery or secret here - if Jetstar failed to defend, maybe the case was won by default without tyhe need for proof of points such as actual arrival time???

Point taken and that is what I suspect.

BUT...

Without the OP indicating such, it will always be specualtion. Someone coming here to find out their chances in a similar circumstance would not be helped.

 

[munitalP]

I am in two minds as to this thread. The OP has drawn our attention to an interesting concept - but fails to share the information on how he (she) has achieved this.

There have been some very reasonable questions asked by other members with each question basically not responded to by the OP.

Everyone has the same right here, to express your opinion. If the OP wishes to tell everyone of his success in court over JQ, good on him...

If another poster wishes to express the post is "BS" because the OP refuses to answer questions regarding the original posting, that is also their right. There's no personal attack that I can see, and looking at it from a fence sitters view, the OP has painted a target on himself by not answering questions asked.

I won a court case against an ISP in Mel a few years back, my lawyer suggested I answered all the questions without getting angry - it would hurt my chances of winning. The ISP rep did get angry, refused to answer questions fully and was evasive. I did win due to these reasons.

The OP just needs to be open, re-read previous posts and answer the questions that people have asked.


:?:
Mr!

 

[vet]

Self-represented persons are assisted by staff at the Court or Tribunal and are helped by less stringent rules of evidence and procedure than superior courts. At the end of the day, the case is about credibility. If there's no reason to doubt the claimant, he wins. He says he was 31 minutes early. Jetstar on the other hand can't get into the witness box the staff on the gate to a Courtroom for a tiny case. Jetstar might not even turn up. So Sam wins in a low cost tribunal that's quick and easy.

Look at Free v Jetstar - Jetstar sent a customer service rep to run the case on whether Terms were Unfair. Jetstar lost. VCAT's Alan Vassie took it upon himself to assess industry issues and decide if Jetstar's terms were fair or not. Ms Free got a free legal ride. Sam might also have benefited from something similar.

Sam, welcome.

 

[vt]

Self-represented persons are assisted by staff at the Court or Tribunal and are helped by less stringent rules of evidence and procedure than superior courts. At the end of the day, the case is about credibility. If there's no reason to doubt the claimant, he wins. He says he was 31 minutes early. Jetstar on the other hand can't get into the witness box the staff on the gate to a Courtroom for a tiny case. Jetstar might not even turn up. So Sam wins in a low cost tribunal that's quick and easy.

Point remains, whatever we say is speculation, unless we have had a similar experience or case. As highlighted, Jetstar may well have tossed the case. But that isnt for us to say.

 

[Platy]

...If another poster wishes to express the post is "BS" because the OP refuses to answer questions regarding the original posting, that is also their right...

That may be, but if so, perhaps the poster invoking BS (or being rude or whatever) should realise that this can impact on the chances of a positive and constructive exchange. There have been several examples of new posters being "questioned aggressively" in the last few months and in each case they (understandably IMHO) reacted negatively.

(PS. I'm not sure that there are any "rights" as such on this forum - surely the style and tenor of posts are ultimately dependent on the steerage of the moderators?)

 

[munitalP]

That may be, but if so, perhaps the poster invoking BS (or being rude or whatever) should realise that this can impact on the chances of a positive and constructive exchange. There have been several examples of new posters being "questioned aggressively" in the last few months and in each case they (understandably IMHO) reacted negatively.

(PS. I'm not sure that there are any "rights" as such on this forum - surely the style and tenor of posts are ultimately dependent on the steerage of the moderators?)

Yeah Platy, don't disagree with anything you have said. I would point out though, the rights I was talking about are not in writing in the forum rules - they are "our rights". I firmly believe that you should say what you are thinking as long as it is not a personal attack - that's my life policy. I didn't see any personal attacks in this thread against the OP. Saying something is BS as far as I'm concerned is not a personal attack.

Also, you are correct with the style and tenor of posts, for example, "THIS POST IS BS!" compared with, "mate, this post is BS".

Apart from that, the OP hasn't shared his experience very well and it's looking like he's not going to either. It's all of our loss.

Mr!

:shock:

 

[straitman]

IMHO opinion there is a difference between expressing caution and rudeness.

Personally, I find it interesting that such a case can be brought forward and potentially won, so don't agree that there is "nothing useful to say"

I would also find it disappointing should people feel it is OK to be rude or ridicule someone or question their integrity because they don't subjectively feel the post is useful enough, or is expressing frustration over an event or supplier.

Platy,

I think you have missed my point. There was nothing aimed at sam I am in this it was a generalization about 'Trolling.'

Sam was on line when I posted this and and for quite a while after. I was really attempting to draw him out a bit. I guess though, the trouble is if you guys took it the wrong way them maybe he did also, which is unfortunate.

I do hope your last sentence was not aimed at me :!: :evil:

 

[Platy]

Platy,

I think you have missed my point. There was nothing aimed at sam I am in this it was a generalization about 'Trolling.'

Sam was on line when I posted this and and for quite a while after. I was really attempting to draw him out a bit. I guess though, the trouble is if you guys took it the wrong way them maybe he did also, which is unfortunate.

I do hope your last sentence was not aimed at me :!: :evil:

Thanks for the clarification, Straitman, and I guess my perception was of a possibility of things being taken the wrong way. I've been on this forum long enough to respect the knowledge, level-headedness and consideration inherent in your own posts - ironically, just like you, I was attempting to make a general not a personal observation!

 

[Platy]

Yeah Platy, don't disagree with anything you have said. I would point out though, the rights I was talking about are not in writing in the forum rules - they are "our rights". I firmly believe that you should say what you are thinking as long as it is not a personal attack - that's my life policy. I didn't see any personal attacks in this thread against the OP. Saying something is BS as far as I'm concerned is not a personal attack.

Also, you are correct with the style and tenor of posts, for example, "THIS POST IS BS!" compared with, "mate, this post is BS".

Apart from that, the OP hasn't shared his experience very well and it's looking like he's not going to either. It's all of our loss.

Mr!

:shock:

All agreed, sir!

 

[simongr]

There have been several examples of new posters being "questioned aggressively" in the last few months and in each case they (understandably IMHO) reacted negatively.

First this is no comment on the OP.

But to respond to the "the forum has been overly harsh recently" comment we have had a number of complete numbskulls coming in recently and posting absolute gibberish. We have also had people join using multiple id's to post in support of their own comments so you will have to forgive if when something smells weird - people assume it is weird...

 

[straitman]

simongr,

For what it's worth I've met Platy, he really is quite normal and not weird at all :!:

 

[Platy]

First this is no comment on the OP.

But to respond to the "the forum has been overly harsh recently" comment we have had a number of complete numbskulls coming in recently and posting absolute gibberish. We have also had people join using multiple id's to post in support of their own comments so you will have to forgive if when something smells weird - people assume it is weird...

Yes, indeed, Simongr. I seem to remember from another thread, that in the case of multiple IDs, the Moderators are very keen for anyone to PM their suspicions.

 

[docjames]

Well, it looks like it's my fault then as i was the original "bs" caller.

I still seriously doubt the claims, and repeatedly posting by sam essentially saying "I won but i cant tell you how" is not useful. Which means either

1. He didnt win / no case existed

2. He's intentionally causing mischief.


I'm sorry if others feel that it's my fault that we didnt get the info sam claims to have - I as much as anyone would like to know even just in broad terms what his case comprised lest I or others here find themselves in the same situation as he puportedly was in this case. And sam was offered multiple opportunites (prior to my "bs" post) yet couldnt or wouldnt provide plausible reasons why he wouldnt post even in the most generic terms how he won.

Please note I did not feel it was "abuse" but was trying to find a more lighthearted way of saying I didnt believe what was being posted. Clearly i'll need to be more circumspect in future.

 

[oz_mark]

Self-represented persons are assisted by staff at the Court or Tribunal and are helped by less stringent rules of evidence and procedure than superior courts. At the end of the day, the case is about credibility. If there's no reason to doubt the claimant, he wins. He says he was 31 minutes early. Jetstar on the other hand can't get into the witness box the staff on the gate to a Courtroom for a tiny case. Jetstar might not even turn up. So Sam wins in a low cost tribunal that's quick and easy.

Look at Free v Jetstar - Jetstar sent a customer service rep to run the case on whether Terms were Unfair. Jetstar lost. VCAT's Alan Vassie took it upon himself to assess industry issues and decide if Jetstar's terms were fair or not. Ms Free got a free legal ride. Sam might also have benefited from something similar.

Sam, welcome.

This was something similar to my take. Jetstar put up a half-hearted defence of Sam's evidence.

 

[Platy]

Well, it looks like it's my fault then as i was the original "bs" caller.

I still seriously doubt the claims, and repeatedly posting by sam essentially saying "I won but i cant tell you how" is not useful. Which means either

1. He didnt win / no case existed

2. He's intentionally causing mischief.


I'm sorry if others feel that it's my fault that we didnt get the info sam claims to have - I as much as anyone would like to know even just in broad terms what his case comprised lest I or others here find themselves in the same situation as he puportedly was in this case. And sam was offered multiple opportunites (prior to my "bs" post) yet couldnt or wouldnt provide plausible reasons why he wouldnt post even in the most generic terms how he won.

Please note I did not feel it was "abuse" but was trying to find a more lighthearted way of saying I didnt believe what was being posted. Clearly i'll need to be more circumspect in future.

Many thanks indeed for the clarification, docjames! I suspect we are all on the same page in our eagerness to learn how to benefit from such a case should the situation ever arise. More info from Sam, if known or available, would still be very welcome.