Originally Posted by
Often1
The same people who rant on FT about honest dealings with consumers cannot also rant when a contract is written in plain English, the consumer is self-evidently literate in English, it is acknowledged by the consumer, and then sloughed off.
You are conveniently ignoring that:
- there is more to "honest dealings" than just the way the contract is worded (e.g. how you go about advising the consumer of their points expiry)
- aspects of the contract are ambiguous (on generic credit card transfer for example)
- QF is behaving inconsistently (e.g. apparently allowing reinstatement opportunities for some but not others)
I trust you are fully briefed on Australian trade practices and consumer law and have read the Qf corporate guidelines on conduct and ethics in making sweeping generalisations about these "same people who rant on FT about honest dealings" (which might be perceived as derogation by fanciful stereotyping).