Case Studies For January 2014

Case Study #1

In Jun-13, Mrs Ang* ordered a 2kg birthday cake for her child’s birthday party at $139.10. The cake was delivered on the day and consumed on the same day. However, she was disappointed with the quality of the cake as the vanilla sponge was extremely dry with only a thin blueberry spread. She felt embarrassed at the party and it caused a lot of wastage as the guests felt that the cake was inedible. She feedback her displeasure and requested the company to investigate but they did not do so. The company reverted back, offering a 10% refund but Mrs Ang requested for a higher refund.

CASE negotiated with the company who eventually agreed to refund $66.50 to Mrs Ang.

Case Study #2

In Feb-13, Mr Chee* purchased an annual pass to watch football on the company’s online portal. He paid $154.08. In Jul-13, the subscription was suddenly terminated. The company claimed that the agreement had indicated that the validity of the pass was only for the 2012/2013 season and not for the 2013/2014 season. Mr Chee felt misled as it was supposed to be an annual pass. He requested for a partial refund.

The issue was highlighted to CASE and the company was informed that they may have infringed upon – CPFTA Section 4(A) – misleading claims and the company was willing to provide a 50% refund.

Case Study #3

Mr Choong* joined an educational course taught by a company. However, some time later, he decided to quit the course due to personal reasons. Having paid $1,450 (SGD) including $399 (USD) exam fees, the company was only willing to refund him the $399 (USD) exam fees. Mr Choong appealed for further deduction of the forfeited fees as he only attended a few lessons.

CASE wrote and appealed on his behalf and the company agreed to offer a refund of $600 (SGD).

Case Study #4

Mr Thomas* purchased two laptops for a total cost of $2,918. One of the computer screens showed one dead pixel upon installation. He informed the company about this matter and they refer him to the manufacturer. The manufacturer refused to help as they claimed that the laptop will only be deemed as defective if there are six or more visible dead pixels. Mr Thomas requested the company to fix the problem for him at no cost.

CASE informed the company about the provisions of the CPFTA 12A - Lemon Law and after some negotiation, the company agreed to a one to one exchange for Mr Thomas.

Case Study #5

Mr Grimmes* purchased an oven and after five years of use, the glass on the oven door shattered suddenly. He emailed the company and was advised that it could be due to a hairline crack and the humidity and pressure which caused the glass to break. Mr Grimmes requested the company to provide him with a more satisfactory explanation.

CASE wrote to the company on his behalf and the company not only provided him a satisfactory explanation but also a 20% discount offer on his next purchase.

*Please note that surnames have been changed to ensure the privacy of the consumers.

Should you find yourself in a similar situation, please do not hesitate to seek assistance from CASE. For general enquiries, you can call our hotline at 6100 0315 between 9am and 5pm from Mondays to Fridays and between 9am and 12pm on Saturdays. For an in-depth consultation with our officers, please visit us at 170 Ghim Moh Road, #05-01 Ulu Pandan Community Building, between 9am and 4pm from Mondays to Saturdays. You can also file a complaint online here.
This website's content is Copyright © CASE | Website Designed and Maintained By Elves Lab | Legal Notice | Privacy Policy