The Lemon Law (Consumer Protection)

[ksl]

I believe this would be a beneficial sticky for all expats!

Maybe you would like to print it out too and carry it in your wallet or purse for an instant reminder to the sellers

http://news.xin.msn.com/en/singapore/ar ... id=4532116

[sundaymorningstaple]

Why? Enforcement of that will be like enforcement of MOM best practices.

[ksl]

Why? Enforcement of that will be like enforcement of MOM best practices.

That may well be true, but not the point! The point is to inform consumers that they do have rights and legal rights...how these rights are judged is not our business It is however in every consumers best interest to support the act, and just like in UK leave the legal side to those that know.

That is also why they have CAB in Singapore, Citizens Advice to guide also on legal aspects. Enforcement in all legal outcomes as always been a problem, take child support for example in divorce cases, if you continue to do something about it, it gets enforced (prison term) even if you cannot afford to pay.

I'm a total supporter by membership of consumer rights, as this is a Country that does abuse those rights.

It has always been typical of Asians to save face, now they have the opportunity to understand, you don't have to accept a defect product, from a con artist.
Even in Genting when i had paid for the kids, rides that was under the pretext, that the tickets get used...It's hardly my fault that their lack of effective crowd monitoring, doesn't allow all children to get the chance to enjoy the ride, even after waiting 90 minutes at many rides, and 20 minutes minimum, it's give and take to provide a service, you cannot just take the ticket money and not provide the ride.

So however unhappy the cashier is refusing to refund the tickets it's tough caca poo poo. I eventually called in management to refund the tickets and they did. But how many poor buggars a lot worse off financially than myself are ripped off. Moral of the story don't be a sucker all your life, creating bad publicity is much more effective. Just remind them of it!

The power of internet marketing is really an effective tool at making people think twice and eventually even Countries will get the message, it all depends who, what, and where is the target.

Though you are right about change, it can be very frustrating and slow it does take several generations.

[x9200]

Why? Enforcement of that will be like enforcement of MOM best practices.

Not necessary. If they do it right it may significantly simplify claiming process in SCT.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Have you ever actually been through the SCT? I have numerous times. Unless you are talking number near the upper limits that they handle, it's basically a joke "if the guy wants to default". By the time you go through all the processes and hire a bailiff (if they decide they ain't gonna settle) to seize and auction, you will find the business "GONE" from the premises with only a empty room left. There will be nothing to seize and worse still you have to front the bailiff's fees up front (It used to by around $300) with no success of getting you money.

[ksl]

Have you ever actually been through the SCT? I have numerous times. Unless you are talking number near the upper limits that they handle, it's basically a joke "if the guy wants to default". By the time you go through all the processes and hire a bailiff (if they decide they ain't gonna settle) to seize and auction, you will find the business "GONE" from the premises with only a empty room left. There will be nothing to seize and worse still you have to front the bailiff's fees up front (It used to by around $300) with no success of getting you money.

I have to agree with you on that! However any sizable retailer will settle rather than being dragged to SCT this I can assure you of, as the publicity is even more costly to the retailers involved, and they know it! So yes you are right if you are talking of an insignificant enterprise that is a fly by night like you find in Sim Lim for example.

But otherwise you are far off the mark, more and more retailers are actually signing up with CAB, as it's a sign of good faith, however it's the retailers insurers, that will attempt to avoid refunding for damaged goods, and will deliberately accuse the consumer to be at fault, these negotiations act on behalf of the sellers and call the consumers bluff.

An individual as hardly the resource to be insured in most cases but all business is expected to be covered. So i can tell you, that sign the retailers have saying. No touch if damaged consider sold, doesn't hold water in this day and age! Though if you are a sucker and pay for the goods you accidently broke on their property more fool the consumer. The same if a retailer gives you a paper bag and the bottom falls out, because they over packed the bag, they are liable for any goods damaged.

Another fact is that most manufacturers give a minimum 1 year guarantee, though these guarantees are not passed on in Singapore to the consumer, normally because the person importing has no way of servicing the RMA agreement because of cost...Manufactures normally meet importers half way on RMA that is to say you pay cost one way, the manufacturer will replace or repair the goods and pay the return cost.

This is very important for branded goods consumers rights to have the protection in place, so failure to give service is a local matter and as you say maybe difficult to execute.

But lets face it, if everyone was to think like you do, then the world of consumer rights would be in reverse order getting worse and worse, so it's either you are for it, or you are against it, or just indifferent and me knowing you so well, can say that you wouldn't be indifferent, and you wouldn't just give up Which means you are for it!

Moral of the story, don't mess with those that know their rights, otherwise it becomes public and more costly to the offenders business.

[x9200]

SMS, why do you assume one is going to have this kind of cases? I typically buy from the retailers that are not going to disappear just because I will sue them for $500. They will also care for their reputation so unlikely it will reach any bailiff stage. And what I was actually taking about was to clearly assign some seller's/buyer's responsibilities. I.e. a fixed period when the seller has to replace or refund for a broken good. This simplifies a lot the whole process - your claim is practically proven even before any hearing started. Right now it is along "reasonably practicable" line.

[sundaymorningstaple]

I was going off on the using of SCT. Not the Lemon Law per se.