Delivery of torchlight with locator

A customer placed on order for 2 torchlights and asked for them to be delivered urgently to his office. He pays a delivery charge of $7. This is the first order with delivery.

It is better for a customer to order more pieces and enjoy a discount of $1 (for order above 5 pieces). The delivery cost will also be spread among a larger number of orders.

Most customers prefer to collect from my office and save on the delivery charges.

Unfair contract terms

There is a law against unfair contract terms in Singapore. Some of the standard terms used in contracts for financial products are likely to be considered as unfair, if they are challenged in court.

If you are caught in an unfair contract, you can engage a lawyer to take a look at the contract to see if it falls foul of this law. If I am not mistaken, the requirement for fair contract goes beyond the concept of "caveat emptor". The other party is required to give fair terms for the contract.

Here are some legal points about contract law in Singapore.

I like to ask volunteers (especially those with legal training) to do some research and send your views to kinlian@gmail.com.

Combating escalating motor claims

Someone asked for my views on why the "motor claim framework", which was introduced two years ago to combat the escalating claims, did not work. This question should more properly be addressed to the parties that introduced this framework, rather than to me.

This framework was introduced by the General Insurance Association with the support of the Monetary Authority of Singapore. They should explain what has happened, what had failed and what they are doing about this matter.

Why did I say that the framework did not work? I recall that the framework was intended to bring down the claims and keep motor premiums from escalating. From anecdotal evidence, it seems that the motor premiums continued to escalate sharply during the past two years. Clearly the framework had failed to achieve its primary purpose.

When the framework was first launched, there were media reports that motorists can wait at the roadside and ask for a surveyor to arrive on the spot to settle the claim or arrange the repair. At that time, it was quite clear to me that this proposal was impractical, but the people who promoted this framework was confident that it would be the silver bullet to solve the underlying problem. It did not work.

It seems that nobody really wants to put to find a solution. They are only interested to make a show of dealing with the problem. Most of the parties involved actually benefited from the escalating claims - the repair shops, the lawyers, and the insurance companies. The only parties that suffer are the consumers, who has to pay higher premiums.

The consumers do not have the power to hold anybody accountable for the escalating premiums. Their complaints will be ignored and will be brushed off as the price for living in an advanced country. If consumers have to pay higher petrol prices and ERP, what is a few dollars more in insurance premiums?

The trouble is that this attitude will lead to wastefulness, which is now acceptable as being part of life in Singapore. It is now a Singapore culture to pay a lot of money on infrastructure and systems (instead of going for cheaper solutions) and passes the higher cost to consumers.

What is the underlying cause of the escalating motor claims, which was not solved during the past three decades? It is caused by fraudulent claims, not only for repair claims but for injury claims as well.

These fraudulent claims cannot be handled by the insurance executives, who do not have the power to deal with crime. They have to be handled by the people with the power, namely the Government. If the Government does not wish to deal with fraudulent claims, then the problem can never be solved.

Tan Kin Lian

Power of demonstration

I gave the rechargeable torchlight to a friend and showed him the use of the locator lamp. He showed it to many of his friends, who expressed interest in the torchlight. He came back to me with an order for a dozen pieces.

Specific unfair practices

ECOND SCHEDULE

Section 4(d)
SPECIFIC UNFAIR PRACTICES

1. Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, ingredients, components, qualities, uses or benefits that they do not have.
2. Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, model, origin or method of manufacture if they are not.
3. Representing that goods are new or unused if they are not or if they have deteriorated or been altered, reconditioned or reclaimed.
4. Representing that goods have been used to an extent different from the fact or that they have a particular history or use if the supplier knows it is not so.
5. Representing that goods or services are available or are available for a particular reason, for a particular price, in particular quantities or at a particular time if the supplier knows or can reasonably be expected to know it is not so, unless the representation clearly states any limitation.
6. Representing that a service, part, repair or replacement is needed or desirable if that is not so, or that a service has been provided, a part has been installed, a repair has been made or a replacement has been provided, if that is not so.
7. Representing that a price benefit or advantage exists respecting goods or services where the price benefit or advantage does not exist.
8. Charging a price for goods or services that is substantially higher than an estimate provided to the consumer, except where the consumer has expressly agreed to the higher price in advance.
9. Representing that a transaction involving goods or services involves or does not involve rights, remedies or obligations where that representation is deceptive or misleading.
10. Representing that a person has or does not have the authority to negotiate the final terms of an agreement involving goods or services if the representation is different from the fact.
11. Taking advantage of a consumer by including in an agreement terms or conditions that are harsh, oppressive or excessively one-sided so as to be unconscionable.
12. Taking advantage of a consumer by exerting undue pressure or undue influence on the consumer to enter into a transaction involving goods or services.
13. Representing in relation to a voucher that another supplier will provide goods or services at a discounted or reduced price if the supplier making the representation knows or ought to know that the other supplier will not do so.
14. Making a representation that appears in an objective form such as an editorial, documentary or scientific report when the representation is primarily made to sell goods or services, unless the representation states that it is an advertisement or a promotion.
15. Representing that a particular person has offered or agreed to acquire goods or services whether or not at a stated price if he has not.
16. Representing the availability of facilities for repair of goods or of spare parts for goods if that is not the case.
17. Offering gifts, prizes or other free items in connection with the supply of goods or services if the supplier knows or ought to know that the items will not be provided or provided as offered.
18. Representing that goods or services are available at a discounted price for a stated period of time if the supplier knows or ought to know that the goods or services will continue to be so available for a substantially longer period.
19. Representing that goods or services are available at a discounted price for a particular reason that is different from the fact.
20. Using small print to conceal a material fact from the consumer or to mislead a consumer as to a material fact, in connection with the supply of goods or services.

Unfair practices as defined in Singapore

Here are some extracts from the Unfair Practices Act:

Meaning of unfair practice
4. It is an unfair practice for a supplier, in relation to a consumer transaction —
(a) to do or say anything, or omit to do or say anything, if as a result a consumer might reasonably be deceived or misled;
(b) to make a false claim;
(c) to take advantage of a consumer if the supplier knows or ought reasonably to know that the consumer —
(i) is not in a position to protect his own interests; or
(ii) is not reasonably able to understand the character, nature, language or effect of the transaction or any matter related to the transaction; or
(d) without limiting the generality of paragraphs (a) to (c), to do anything specified in the Second Schedule.

Circumstances surrounding unfair practice
5. —(1) An unfair practice may occur before, during or after a consumer transaction.
(2) An unfair practice may consist of a single act or omission.
(3) In determining whether or not a person has engaged in an unfair practice —
(a) the reasonableness of the actions of that person in those circumstances is to be considered; and
(b) an act or omission by an employee or agent of a person is deemed also to be an act or omission of the person if the act or omission occurred in the course of —
(i) the employee’s employment with the person; or
(ii) the agent exercising the powers or performing the duties on behalf of the person within the scope of the agent’s actual or apparent authority.
Consumer’s right to sue for unfair practice

If a consumer has been the subject of an unfair practice, the consumer can sue the supplier under this Act, but the amount of claim is subject to a limit of $20,000.