Case Studies For October 2014

Case Study #1

In July 2012, Ms Ho* selected some curtains from a home furnishing company. She paid $7,000 in full. When the workers came to her home to set up the curtains, Ms Ho realised that the curtains were 10cm shorter than expected and of an incorrect colour. When Ms Ho enquired with the manager, he was ill-mannered and insisted that the colours were correct. He was only willing to provide Ms Ho with a 50% discount to purchase a new set of curtains. Ms Ho was unfamiliar with the colour codes for the curtains written on the receipt and trusted the salesperson to write down the correct colour she had chosen. She was not satisfied with the company’s service and requested to replace the curtains at no additional cost.

CASE advised the company that they may have infringed upon the Sale of Goods Act. After negotiation, the company eventually agreed to replace the current curtains with those of the correct colour and length for Ms Ho.

 

Case Study #2

In June 2012, Ms Nurul* booked a resort at Bali from a holiday firm via phone and paid $2,260. As she is a Muslim, Ms Nurul specifically enquired if halal food will be served when she made the booking. The reservation officer assured Ms Nurul that her food will be cooked on a separate stove. However, when Ms Nurul was having lunch on the second day at the resort, she saw that the bacon and chicken sausages were placed side by side. The chef was also using the same pair of tongs to prepare the bacon and chicken sausages. Ms Nurul felt uncomfortable and made a complaint to the company. The company offered her $1,070 in credits. However, Ms Nurul requested for a $1,130 refund instead.

The case was reported and CASE negotiated with the company. The issue was resolved after both parties agreed to a $535 refund to Ms Nurul.

 

Case Study #3

In May 2012, Mr Chew* hired a catering company to provide catering services for his wedding tea reception at a church. He paid $1,951 for the service. The order indicated that the food would be delivered at 6pm but the food arrived only after 7.30pm. The delay resulted in the church forfeiting Mr Chew’s $400 deposit. The company initially offered $200 as compensation but used delaying tactics. They sent an apology letter on some time later, changing their compensation offer to $100. Mr Chew was unsatisfied and requested for $400 to compensate for the loss of his deposit and to provide additional perks as a goodwill gesture for their failure to honour the contract.

CASE negotiated with the company on Mr Chew’s behalf. The company eventually agreed to compensate Mr Chew with $400.

 

Case Study #4

Mr Yang* enrolled for educational course in March 2010 and made full payment of $3,232 via credit card. Due to poor health he withdrew himself from the course in October 2010. In April 2012, Mr Yang was shocked to receive the school’s letter demanding outstanding payment amounting to $3,232. Mr Yang clarified with the school and was asked to serve formal notice of withdrawal as at April 2012. As Mr Yang had not enrolled for any other course, he disputed this payment request as an erroneous charge. Mr Yang requested to formalise the termination of any contract with the school and forgo the payment of $3,232.

CASE negotiated with the school and the school agreed to waive the outstanding amount as the final settlement.

 

Case Study #5

In October 2012, Mr Zuhairi* paid in full for an air conditioning system from a company at $4,699. However, the air conditioner exhibited a loud unsettling noise during operation. Mr Zuhairi informed the company who sent down a repairman twice, but the issue was not fixed. Upon completion of the second repair in April 2013, Mr Zuhairi was shocked to be given a receipt stating a model and serial number that was different from his actual AC condenser. He tried to contact the company again but was unsuccessful as only empty promises were made. Mr Zuhairi requested rectification of his defective air conditioner and an explanation without further delay.

CASE highlighted the Lemon Law - defective goods and the Sale of Goods Act – goods must be of satisfactory quality to the company. After negotiation, the company agreed to replace the condenser of the defective air conditioning unit and offered an extension of the warranty to Mr Zuhairi.

*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