Jump to content

Sim Lim Square


Forte3737
 Share

Recommended Posts

With so much hype esp pressure from overseas, like China and Vietnam, pretty sure garmen will step up the improvement of law and esp so on more power to be given to CASE...

We can't have a tiger that can only meow like cat and can't even bite :D

 

Waiting on how fast they can pass thru parliament on increasing power to CASE to prosecute these errant offenders

U beri optimistic hor. WLL ah......maybe gotta wait for some MP to get scammed at SLS first. LOL!

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

U beri optimistic hor. WLL ah......maybe gotta wait for some MP to get scammed at SLS first. LOL!

Tiagong from edmw that landlord wanna evict joker chew Liao!!!! [laugh]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiagong from edmw that landlord wanna evict joker chew Liao!!!! [laugh]

 

Why would a landlord do that? If the law cannot do anything to Chew, there's nothing the landlord can do unless he didn't pay his rent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why would a landlord do that? If the law cannot do anything to Chew, there's nothing the landlord can do unless he didn't pay his rent.

Sooner or later people csi him out from land office records, he also Tua kee Liao [sly]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supercharged

If the law cannot do anything to Chew, there's nothing the landlord can do unless he didn't pay his rent.

 

depends on the rental contract,

would probably have break lease clause...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

depends on the rental contract,

would probably have break lease clause...

 

Yes will have break lease clauses but I have not come across one for a case such as Mobile Air. Unless it can be proven he broke the law, else, the landlord will just be wasting money and giving chew a reason to sue him

Sooner or later people csi him out from land office records, he also Tua kee Liao [sly]

 

If landlord is involve in the business, yes. If not, I don't see how he should be blamed. It will be unfair to him because he have no control over how chew conduct his business.

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If CASE and SPF can't action on it, then can small claim tribunal court do something? From all cases, seem like the scammers will get the victim to sign a contract stating the $1,000 or more "warranty" coverage for a year and purposely "masked" out the line... Can this constitute to an unfair contract because $1,000 to cover warranty is unreasonable?

 

Even if we amend "criminal breach of trust" but scammers showed the contract, will the victim be able to claim ignorance of the warranty coverage payment? Unless you have video proof to show that they "forced" you to sign on it else how to fight with "black and white"?

 

I think ah bengs are smart to "profit" from this loophole. Sell all mobile phones cheap cheap and "poke" the victim's backside by paying extra for warranty... I mean I can even sell Xiaomi for $99 and then get the carrot-head to sign for $1,000 warranty coverage, can the law punish that?

 

Most important thing is regardless of department, SPF or CASE, consumers must be aware what precautions that they can take but all CASE had displayed is useless. And I would suggest SLS not just to blacklist them but deny them from renting a unit in the building. All these blacksheep will cause SLS to lose more customers. Don't let the rotten apples spoil the whole basket of apples.

 

So lor soh. LoL...

Why make it look so complicated. In such case it's only hiring a lawyer will get what you want back.

 

If you are a tourist would you spent $2K-$3K to hire a local lawyer to get back the $2K-$3K iphone? Not to mention the case may drag a 6months-12months. You think too much lah. Ah beng smarter dan you coz he knows ppl won't go thru the hassle. He dun even have to study law to know all these.

 

They are able to get back their money thru small claims tribunal but if you are a tourist, would you go to small courts, fill up forms and dan wait a couple of weeks to get your money back?

 

Let's move on lah. Ppl need to do their homework on research before purchasing their much awaited iphone.

Edited by Watwheels
  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Supercharged

 

Unless it can be proven he broke the law, else, the landlord will just be wasting money and giving chew a reason to sue him

 

sue on what grounds?

 

landlords can always break lease (at most compensate) unless there's a guaranteed lease duration...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

sue on what grounds?

 

landlords can always break lease (at most compensate) unless there's a guaranteed lease duration...

 

All rental contracts has a guarantee period. If any party were to break it before the period is up, the other party can sue for losses.

 

Like you said, can compensate but why would a landlord do that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Landlord should check the back ground before he lease. Just like renting out yr house to criminal, is yr job to check before rent. In this case, it is more then about making money. This landlord need to play good citizen for the good image of Singapore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So lor soh. LoL...

Why make it look so complicated. In such case it's only hiring a lawyer will get what you want back.

 

If you are a tourist would you spent $2K-$3K to hire a local lawyer to get back the $2K-$3K iphone? Not to mention the case may drag a 6months-12months. You think too much lah. Ah beng smarter dan you coz he knows ppl won't go thru the hassle. He dun even have to study law to know all these.

 

They are able to get back their money thru small claims tribunal but if you are a tourist, would you go to small courts, fill up forms and dan wait a couple of weeks to get your money back?

 

Let's move on lah. Ppl need to do their homework on research before purchasing their much awaited iphone.

 

So lor soh. Lol.........too.

 

One sentence. These "black shops" usually scam tourists and not locals unless the local is easily makan from one look.

 

:huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supercharged

 

So lor soh. Lol.........too.

 

One sentence. These "black shops" usually scam tourists and not locals unless the local is easily makan from one look.

 

:huh:

 

they used to scam ang moh (few cases reported on papers) and fight broke out in their shop.

things turned extremely ugly and even becomes police case for fighting.

now they're smarter, they scam asian. no fighting, call in police also nothing can be done.

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Landlord should check the back ground before he lease. Just like renting out yr house to criminal, is yr job to check before rent. In this case, it is more then about making money. This landlord need to play good citizen for the good image of Singapore.

It's all about money in capitalism . Morals from landlord? Wait long long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Twincharged

Landlord should check the back ground before he lease. Just like renting out yr house to criminal, is yr job to check before rent. In this case, it is more then about making money. This landlord need to play good citizen for the good image of Singapore.

 

Which landlord will do that? The landlord wants to profit also. He don't care what happens as long as their business is good and they can continue paying rent. If he need to check background and all these before renting it out then it might turn off some people from renting the space and he still need to spend more time and money to check on their background.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged

 

they used to scam ang moh (few cases reported on papers) and fight broke out in their shop.

things turned extremely ugly and even becomes police case for fighting.

now they're smarter, they scam asian. no fighting, call in police also nothing can be done.

cos those AM are mostly from USMC. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing will change lah. All the uproar and hoohaa, six months later it will be business as usual.

 

It has already been illustrated that these practices are the result of a systematic failure because all people get from CASE/SPF/STB is taiji here and there. The system and taiji will not change because it is too ingrained.

 

In other words, everyone can lan lan suck thumb. For this one Jover there are many more bengs in the background waiting to step in and take his place.

It can be solved, just pass a iron clad consumer protection law.

 

Case/Police has no power to decide on a simple case whereby the warranty on the phone cost more than the phone itself, our consumer protection regime is really pathetic. Scams will continue but this type of clear cut scams can't be allowed to continue.

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...