Case Studies For June 2017

Case Study #1

In November 2016, Amy* visited a health supplement shop because of body pain and stiffness, and was promoted a type of medicine to relieve her pain. She paid $1,500 for the item. However, the medicine did not work and seemed to cause her more pain. She consulted a doctor and was told that it was not suitable for her. After eating the medicine prescribed by the doctor, her pain subsided. Thereafter, Amy returned to the shop and asked to return the item she bought for a refund. She provided a copy of her doctor’s letter but the salesperson acted in a threatening manner. Amy eventually approached CASE for assistance.

CASE highlighted to the business that it was an unfair practice under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA) to make false claims in relation to a consumer transaction. The business eventually agreed to provide a refund of $1,250 to Amy as the final settlement.

Case Study #2

In May 2017, Fred* purchased a laptop for $1,300. Three days after the purchase, the back cover of the laptop detached and could not be replaced. Fred contacted the company and was told to bring the defective laptop to the service centre for repairs. When he brought the laptop to the service centre, he was charged $260 for the repairs. He requested for the company to repair his laptop at no cost instead.

CASE highlighted the Lemon Law for defective goods to the company and succeeded to negotiate for the repair of the laptop at no cost to Fred.

Case Study #3

In December 2016, Jane* brought her six-year-old daughter to pierce her ears at a shop and selected three pairs of earrings based on the recommendation of the salesperson who claimed that the earrings were suitable for a young child. She paid $35 for the ear piercing and $230 for the earrings. Unfortunately, the piercing did not seem to heal and pus formed on her daughter’s ear. Her daughter was diagnosed to be suffering from ear lobe infection as she was allergic to the metal of the earrings. Hence, Jane requested for a refund.

CASE negotiated with the business and Jane was able to get back a full refund of $230 for the earrings.

Case Study #4

In May 2016, Mark* purchased an air-conditioner for $4,100, which included a five-year extended warranty. One month later, the air-conditioner exhibited the problem of shutting down after being switched on for a few hours and was not able to produce cold air. Mark contacted the business and was told that he would need to pay for maintenance cost as the repairman had to conduct a gas pressure leak test which was not covered under the warranty. Mark felt that he was led to believe that the warranty coverage covered all aspects of the repair. He requested for all tests and repair costs to be waived.

CASE negotiated with the business on Mark’s behalf. The business eventually agreed to repair the air-conditioner at no cost.

*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