Two year time-bar

howticklediam

Jet2 Update....worth a listen I think.

fermi

Yes, Paul Lewis just been on BBC news about it and will be on BBCR4 Moneybox with a piece at 12.04pm

JPears

howticklediam wrote: »

Check your terms and conditions from the booking, if it has a clause saying there is a two year limit to bring an [legal] action, then yes.

I don't know whether TC are using this argument or not, but they can only use it if it's in the small print. And even then the next few weeks will give you an idea of the chances of having it overturned.

Howtickled - this is a crucial point - no T&Cs (TIAAO) state legal claim/action.
If it doesn't say legal it doesn't mean legal.

fermi

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05j92m4

howticklediam

JPears wrote: »

Howtickled - this is a crucial point - no T&Cs (TIAAO) state legal claim/action.
If it doesn't say legal it doesn't mean legal.

I don't know what TIAAO means, but yes I agree it doesn't say "legal action" and that is a point that you have to argue in front of a judge because the airlines are saying this is clear and understood.

tracylou

howticklediam wrote: »

I don't know what TIAAO means, but yes I agree it doesn't say "legal action" and that is a point that you have to argue in front of a judge because the airlines are saying this is clear and understood.

I think it means "that I am aware of". That's what it looks like to me anyway, but I could be wrong.

JPears

howticklediam wrote: »

I don't know what TIAAO means, but yes I agree it doesn't say "legal action" and that is a point that you have to argue in front of a judge because the airlines are saying this is clear and understood.

Clear and understood by whom? A legal trained person perhaps, but the T&Cs are written for the general public.

I am not sure what the modern term/test or phrase used these days is but "the man (or woman) on the Clapham Omnibus" was the usual bar set for reasonableness.
Although I appreciate it is more often used in negligence cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus

JPears

tracylou - correct - you win a cookie

stevemej

JPears wrote: »

Clear and understood by whom? A legal trained person perhaps, but the T&Cs are written for the general public.

I am not sure what the modern term/test or phrase used these days is but "the man (or woman) on the Clapham Omnibus" was the usual bar set for reasonableness.
Although I appreciate it is more often used in negligence cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus

Well here is an excerpt from jet2's defence:



The Contract expressly incorporated the Defendant's General Terms and Conditions of Carriage for Passengers and Baggage (the
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Conditions[/FONT][/FONT]), a copy of which are attached to this Defence. Clause 31.5 of the Conditions, formed part of the Contract by which the Defendant agreed to carry the Claimant for reward, provides as follows:

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]"[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]




[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]31.5 Time limits to bring a Claim [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Your right to make any claim against [Jet2.com] shall be extinguished if you do not bring an action within 2 years from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped." [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]



[/FONT]
11. Further or alternatively, on the true construction of the Conditions and/or by an implied term (implied therein in order to give business efficacy thereto and/or as reflecting the common intentions of the parties and/or because it went without saying and/or as a matter of law) the Claimants agreed that they would not bring legal proceedings against the Defendant more than two years after the scheduled date of arrival and/or the actual date of arrival at their destination.


The fact that the solicitors need to explain the terms: "on the true construction of the Conditions and/or by an implied term" mean that the terms are not in fact unambiguaous but CLEARLY ambiguaous at best.

The game is up for them in my opinion.


Of course I meant 'unambiguous' and 'ambiguous'

tracylou

JPears wrote: »

tracylou - correct - you win a cookie

Thanks JP, I love cookies.

Although in my mid-sixties, I can usually manage to figure out this new use of the English language, but there's one that's been bugging me for some time now.

OP is used a lot on here and I can't work it out. It couldn't be as simple as "other poster" could it?