I guess you have been following these "influencers" postings and know the history of the issues they had with their van.
If you haven't, then just imagine what it would be like if you had spent almost $200,000 on a van which didn't work the way it should. This family of seven, including four pre-school kids, live full-time in their van. I am pretty sure they would not have made up "crap", disrupted their family life for months on end and put themselves financially out of pocket just to get a headline on social media.
Maybe they made a mistake in making public the issues they had if they had already agreed to remain silent, but my understanding is that the manufacturer had shafted them until the story did go public. Perhaps they should have contacted "A Current Affair" instead of having the guts to do it themselves. If you do know the facts and I have read the situation wrong I stand to be corrected.
They had a court decision in there favour, they chose to ignore the terms of that decision and continued to bad mouth the manufacturer publicly Then didn't turn up to court to defend their actions, seems like the end result should have been expected, and the blame lies squarely at their feet.
They had a court decision in there favour, they chose to ignore the terms of that decision and continued to bad mouth the manufacturer publicly Then didn't turn up to court to defend their actions, seems like the end result should have been expected, and the blame lies squarely at their feet.
I think by now the majority of the population worldwide, is well aware that 100% of what we get fed in the social media is pure crap at its best.. I think the those kinds of videos on youtube only influence the gullible people that spend time watching them in the first place..
And yes, I agree,.. They deserve to be accountable, especially after the first court decision went in their favour... But the reality of it, is that there is no such thing as freedom of speech..
And far more important, we must always remember that every coin has two sides.. All you get from all social media, it is always only one!
I guess you have been following these "influencers" postings and know the history of the issues they had with their van.
If you haven't, then just imagine what it would be like if you had spent almost $200,000 on a van which didn't work the way it should. This family of seven, including four pre-school kids, live full-time in their van. I am pretty sure they would not have made up "crap", disrupted their family life for months on end and put themselves financially out of pocket just to get a headline on social media.
Maybe they made a mistake in making public the issues they had if they had already agreed to remain silent, but my understanding is that the manufacturer had shafted them until the story did go public. Perhaps they should have contacted "A Current Affair" instead of having the guts to do it themselves. If you do know the facts and I have read the situation wrong I stand to be corrected.
Regards Robert
If I had to spend 200k on a van, I make sure I do my homework, instead of hoping for the best and even try to make money by putting videos out in public, that only shows my ignorance on the subject... In all honesty, I think they made more than one mistake..
I have lost counts of how many people I have witness, that out of the blue, in the middle of covid, became instant caravan experts, and bought a piece of crap based on their "true" limited knowledge on the subject, and now just complain that things didn't turn up the way they expected...
If I had to guess, I would say that instead of doing the leg work and talk to real people in caravan park or showgrounds, they gained all their knowledge from Internet and youtube video...
And this is the result! If you sleep with dogs, you'll wake up with fleas...
Out of interest I had a skim through a couple of their videos and honestly given the way he smashes his gear around i think they were very lucky to get a refund on the van in the first place.
I wasn't aware of any "previous court decision in their favour" as you say. If that was the case and they breached the courts ruling to remain silent, then they set themselves up for contempt of court. There has been no mention of that.
On this and other caravan forums, which by the way are "social media" and supposedly "100% crap at best", we have been complaining for yonks about how the RV industry regularly rips-off the consumer by providing sub-standard products with minimal after sales service. Although the Cartwrights possibly over dramatised the issues they had in order to promote their interests, the issues they had were real. And the longer those issues remained, the louder the complaints became. That's human nature. Paying out someone to stay quiet doesn't suddenly make the product faultless. The design or manufacturing faults still exist. At least they had the balls to stand up and criticize a faulty product on camera.
It also seems intriguing that a company attributes such a "loss of sales" on one families negative youtube videos. If that rang true then Jayco should have been out of business years ago.
From my reading, a company with more than 10 FTE like Jayco cannot sue for Defamation as they dont have standing. And the alternative, the tort of Injurious False hood requires malice on behalf of the other party. Just my honest opinion here.
No comment on this case, other than it is unfortunate for the family, but just a comment in general about the reasonably new concept of constant travel in a van, from singles, retired couples, right the way up to families such as this.
Having seen how the build quality of vans, and standards for that, are a source of comment and disgust by many, in my opinion, people are taking a big risk expecting their caravans to survive 24/7/52 travel around Australias road system, especially when you throw in our remote dirt roads and tracks that many of these people seem drawn. And spending $150k+ doesnt guarantee better build quality, just more shiny bits.
We see a lot of advertising by manufacturers saying how you can take your vans off road, but NONE saying you can live in it full time and do that for months or years on end. This industry has always catered for the holiday usage of their product, and mainly on reasonable sealed roads, and for this reason people should be very careful when choosing this lifestyle. (This comment is not as an apologist for this industries poor efforts at quality control or fitness for purpose)
-- Edited by TheHeaths on Wednesday 13th of May 2026 10:03:58 AM
__________________
Regards Ian
Chaos, mayhem, confusion. Good my job here is done
From my reading, a company with more than 10 FTE like Jayco cannot sue for Defamation as they dont have standing. And the alternative, the tort of Injurious False hood requires malice on behalf of the other party. Just my honest opinion here.
regards
Jayco was not the company involved in this matter.
Another Victorian company was involved with this case. Did you mention Jayco merely as an example of a larger company?
You are probably not old enough, but do you remember when we used to communicate using FidoNet. I'm talking about around the mid 80'.. This forum is not social media as people intend when they are referring to social media...
I mean crap like Facebook, Youtube, Reddit, Instagram and all the rest all the way down to news sites... This forum is what it is left of the old BBS... But yes if you want to be picky, even an email then can be interpreted as social media by your standard... Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to judge your preference... But I do stand for what I believe, and that is the not just social media, but internet as a whole is 100% crap compared to what it was when we started back in the 80'. Back then, Internet (Fidonet) had a real purpose and a true usefulness that it is no longer there.. How often have you access a university for accountable data lately?? Internet today is no different from watching TV..
-- Edited by Burt65 on Wednesday 13th of May 2026 05:23:17 PM
From my reading, a company with more than 10 FTE like Jayco cannot sue for Defamation as they dont have standing. And the alternative, the tort of Injurious False hood requires malice on behalf of the other party. Just my honest opinion here.
regards
Jayco was not the company involved in this matter.
Another Victorian company was involved with this case. Did you mention Jayco merely as an example of a larger company?
Just by reference to the post above mine which mentioned Jayco and adverse comments which might lead to loss of sales. Not much Jayco could do about it if there were many adverse comments on their quality unless they were malicious.
Definitely not suggesting Jayco has anything to do with the current matter.
After seeking more information on the Cartwrights case, it seems I was wrong about there not being an initial court case giving them legal access to a full refund. After obtaining the initial judgement in their favour they then apparently broke the confidentiality agreement which led to them then being sued for damages.
It's a shame they had to even pledge silence in the first place just to get their refund for a product which appears wasn't fit for purpose. If faulty products or workmanship can be clearly demonstrated and documented, surely it is for the benefit of all consumers that the details are made public. Any shonky manufacturer should be able to be named and shamed without fear of legal repercussions.
I hope this ruling by the courts doesn't encourage the industry to cut more corners with sub-standard products because they feel less likely to be held accountable.
