![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
mattwnz:
Under the CGA for services, if you paid for a service, don't they have to provide that service?
Carriage of goods act , takes precedent over the CGA. I'm guessing, without reading the law.
surfisup1000:
Carriage of goods act , takes precedent over the CGA. I'm guessing, without reading the law.
The COG Act is repealed, so it won't be taking precent over anything.
Aren't we all missing some vital information here? What flavour were the Tim Tams?
And does the recipient know of the Tim Tam Slam?
surfisup1000:
Does the law take into account the expiry date on perishable items?
Seems like a loophole if it does not.
Usual IANAL caveat.
I don't see why it would specifically address that. The law deals with such issues as who can make a claim and when, and what carriers may contract out of. NZ Post is relying on the goods being perishable to absolve them of any and all responsibility. That is utter nonsense.
The terms do not prohibit sending of these goods, only that they are sent at your own risk. A reasonable person would interpret that clause as intending to protect NZ Post in the event that items went bad whilst in transit. That is not the case; they lost the item.
Has NZ Post acknowledged the item has been lost?
If so, they have acknowledged a failure in their service. IMO the subsequent perishing (or eating) of the item is the result of NZ Post failing to provide the service they were contracted to provide. The item would not perish if not for their actions, therefore liability remains with them.
+1 as this is vital beta, some flavours being vastly superior/desirable.
1024kb:
What flavour were the Tim Tams?
harlansmart:+1 as this is vital beta, some flavours being vastly superior/desirable.
1024kb:What flavour were the Tim Tams?
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |