Originally Posted by
PLeblond
I just got the notice via email.
a) I never asked to be in this!!!!!!
b) according to the email, if I want to opt out, I need to contact the superior court by registered mail???????
I always knew Quebec was looney, but this one takes the cake. What's wrong with this place???? I'm sooooo aggravated right now.
Anybody here knowledgeable about law know how I can get out of this without having to do cartwheels???
The opting out is if you want to litigate your own case. The option protects your rights, so if you think the Quebec court is "looney" for giving you this option, oki dokie. It is nothing new and is common to all class actions.
BTW, BC has a far more active approach to class actions, and Ontario isn't that far behind.
AC has done its utmost to have this class action tossed and it failed. Usually the spurious litigation doesn't get certified. This is going to be an interesting case because it is going to expose some of AC's marketing practices, which I don't think AC wants the public to know about. If AC wants to keep its secrets it is going to have to settle. I do hope this goes to trial because the evidence should be both educational and entertaining.
Originally Posted by
24left
From another thread, but relevant here
EXACTLY.
This nonsense reminds me of:
1. The chocolate price-fixing lawsuit. Did you all get your free chocolate bar or whatever? Are you happy now?
2. Some legal professionals with perhaps no real work to keep them busy
3. People who seems either lazy or clueless or both as to the rules and regs of buying airline tickets (and if you need further examples, check AC's FB page).
I understand Quebec Consumer Protection Laws as well as some of those in California, but anyone who thinks this will be beneficial in the end is as foolish now as they day these suits were filed.
it's bad enough here in nanny-state-centre-of-the-universe
Whoa. Let's look a one of your comments:
People who seems either lazy or clueless or both as to the rules and regs of buying airline tickets (and if you need further examples, check AC's FB page).
I don't doubt that some people are stupid or that they don't read the most evident of the rules. However, an ethical company that sells products or services to the general public has an obligation to not engage in deceptive advertising. A strong argument can be made that AC worded its rules and structured its advertising, in the period to which this case applies, in such a manner as to cause confusion and to mislead the "average" man/woman. I have a decent education and manage complex contracts on a regular basis, yet I still find the AC rules of ticketing and fare structure confusing. Hopefully, this case changes the AC approach and forces AC to use clearer language and to be more transparent. If it accomplishes that, then the majority of consumers will benefit.