Case Studies For November 2014

Case Study #1

Mr Ong* visited a shop in July 2012. The shop representative promoted a certain Enzyme product that was claimed to help with digestion. Mr Ong agreed and paid $2,136 for 12 bottles and had consumed one bottle to date. He found the product ineffective. Mr Ong’s research online also yielded no verification from an independent authority that the enzyme product did aid in digestion. The company was unable to verify their claims as well. Mr Ong no longer has confidence in the product and requested for a refund for the 11 unused bottles.

CASE negotiated with the company and the company agreed to refund Mr Ong the full amount of $2,136 as the full and final settlement.

 

Case Study #2

In Nov 2012, Mr Tony* purchased a pair of spectacles with prescribed lens for $2,029 and collected it in Jan 2013. This purchase was supposed to be a replacement pair of spectacles as the first pair of spectacles that Mr Tony ordered at $1,969 had unsuitable lens and he had to top up another $60 for the exchange to a new pair. However after trying the new pair of spectacles at the shop, Mr Tony still found the lens unsuitable and the spectacles frame was missing fastening screws. The spectacle shop refused to address these problems. Mr Tony thus requested for a refund of $2,029 for failing to provide rectification or replacement of the spectacles without cost.

CASE contacted the company and the company was advised that they may have infringed upon the CPFTA Section 12A Lemon Law - Defective Goods. After negotiation, the company agreed to refund $2,029 to Mr Tony as the final settlement.

 

Case Study #3

In September 2012, Mr Wilson* bought a voucher for a customized photobook via an online shopping platform. The voucher was redeemable at a photobook design company. Mr Wilson paid $108 and redeemed the voucher on the same day. He sent all the required details to the company. The company did not contact Mr Wilson for an entire month. Mr Wilson sent a reminder email to the company at the end of October 2012. The company eventually responded and claimed that there was a delay. They offered Mr Wilson a free upgrade to 250gsm paper for the photobook. Three months later, the company continued to employ delaying tactics and did not get back to Mr Wilson. Having lost confidence owing to persistent customer service lapses, Mr Wilson did not wish to purchase the photobook anymore and requested for a full refund.

CASE negotiated with the company on the consumer’s behalf and Mr Wilson managed to get back a refund of $108.

 

Case Study #4

In Nov 2012, Ms Lee* bought a one-way ticket to Taipei for two, departing on the same night. Upon check-in, Ms Lee was not allowed to proceed to her flight. She was told that she needed to buy a return ticket for both people before being allowed to board the plane. Ms Lee did not know that there was such a policy and paid $428.17 for two return tickets in confusion as she was in a hurry. However, Ms Lee’s sister in Taipei passed away and the funeral was held there. Ms Lee was not able to return on the flight and requested for a refund of $428.17 since she did not engage the service.

The matter was reported to CASE and the company was informed that they may have infringed upon the CPFTA - Making false claims that a transaction involving goods or services has or does not have rights, remedies or obligations. After negotiation, the company agreed to provide a refund of $428 via voucher

 

Case Study #5

In Oct 2012, Mr Goh* purchased an Android docker for $219. Within seven days, the item became faulty and Mr Goh did an exchange with the company. Thereafter, the device was still defective and Mr Goh did two other exchanges with the company. To date, the item was replaced three times. Mr Goh requested for a refund from the company but was refused. Subsequently, the company offered an iPhone docker to Mr Goh. He found this unacceptable as he had purchased the docker for his Android device. Mr Goh requested for a refund instead.

CASE emphasised to the company that they may have infringed on the CPFTA Section 12A Lemon Law - Defective Goods. After negotiation, the company eventually agreed to provide a full refund of $219 to Mr Goh.

*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