"Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF93838.478AE0B7@no-spam
>
>
> abh wrote:
> >
> > I just had a hearing with RACQ in the Small Claims Tribunal and they
> > objected on jurisdictional grounds saying that it was an indemnity
matter
> > and they were not a trader under the Act.
> > Has anyone any feedback on this
>
> What you say is that the RACQ objected on jurisdictional grounds. You
> don't state if they succeeded or not with their objection. The
> magistrate would have ruled on it.
>
> The sell "products" called "policies" - Hmmm... sure as hell sound
> like "traders" to me. In any event it is a matter of contract, and a
> monetary claim on that contract. I don't see why it isn't within the
> jurisdiction - provided it doesn't exceed the monetary limit.
>
my reading as well, however they suceeded although I do not see anywhere in
the Act that exempts indemnity providors
It does exempy professional people , doctors lawyers and such but the claim
that they had a contract to suppy goods as replacement for good lost and had
previously did do fell on deaf ears.
>
> SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> " Don't resent getting old. A great many are denied that privilege "
> ---------------------------------------------------------------