Singapore Expats Forum

Heartbroken

Discuss about the latest news & interesting topics, real life experience or other out of topic discussions with locals & expatriates in Singapore.

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9812
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Postby ecureilx » Fri, 03 Jun 2011 11:54 am

Barri wrote:7. Then I went to the police to make a missing item rapport and to inform us regarding the rights we have. According to the police I can ask for a refund or sue. (and no for the ones with a slapstick imagination I do not wish to go that far)


At the risk of being called a irritant, I am curious to know which section of the law says you can sue somebody for throwing away your left-behind :D :D

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9319
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:34 pm

ecureilx wrote:
Barri wrote:7. Then I went to the police to make a missing item rapport and to inform us regarding the rights we have. According to the police I can ask for a refund or sue. (and no for the ones with a slapstick imagination I do not wish to go that far)


At the risk of being called a irritant, I am curious to know which section of the law says you can sue somebody for throwing away your left-behind :D :D

You can always sue anybody to be precise regardless you are right or wrong. Which section? I can probably dig it up for you but maybe a common sense would be more practical here - you really think you can throw away or damage somebody's car, telephone or a toy (whatever) just because you found it in your private property? Typically there are only very limited circumstances you can do this one being strong likelihood that the thing is of low value and abandoned at the same time, second if you incur some loses/expenses because of keeping the thing that exceed its value.

@Barri, damn, I don't really know what to think about you but I still think it is at least on the edge of the system and other people time abuse.

User avatar
poodlek
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon, 10 May 2010
Location: Taipa, Macau
Contact:

Postby poodlek » Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:45 pm

x9200 wrote:@Barri, damn, I don't really know what to think about you but I still think it is at least on the edge of the system and other people time abuse.


That's the thing, it's on the edge, not blatant, if you give him(her?) the benefit of the doubt. I don't know if they have such a thing here (probably would be considered a waste of taxpayer's money...) but back home they have "community liaison officers" that go into schools etc and teach about the various aspects of law and safety and social responsibility to the kids. They are real police officers, and from what I've seen do a wonderful job. If I were in a situation like Barri's, I might consider going to the station and asking for that officer to speak to my child.
Last edited by poodlek on Fri, 03 Jun 2011 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
poodlek
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon, 10 May 2010
Location: Taipa, Macau
Contact:

Postby poodlek » Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:55 pm

Also, it's the officer's choice whether s/he entertains Barri's 'time-waster' whether Barri demands or not. I would hope that Singapore has trained their officers well enough to know the difference between wasting time and community outreach, and that they have enough integrity to avoid wasting time and the taxpayer's money.

Edited to correct my mom-brain mistake :-D
Last edited by poodlek on Fri, 03 Jun 2011 1:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9319
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Fri, 03 Jun 2011 1:03 pm

May not be the officer's choice. They may be obliged by law to file the report.
And... Barri's, NOT Beppie's :)

User avatar
poodlek
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon, 10 May 2010
Location: Taipa, Macau
Contact:

Postby poodlek » Fri, 03 Jun 2011 1:09 pm

x9200 wrote:May not be the officer's choice. They may be obliged by law to file the report.
And... Barri's, NOT Beppie's :)


Then I would hope the officer would prioritize his/her time according to what reports are more pressing. How much time is wasted? Presumably only the few minutes it took to take down the information. And I seriously doubt that they'd spend any man-hours actually looking for the toy.

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9812
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Postby ecureilx » Fri, 03 Jun 2011 2:47 pm

x9200 wrote:You can always sue anybody to be precise regardless you are right or wrong. Which section? I can probably dig it up for you but maybe a common sense would be more practical here - you really think you can throw away or damage somebody's car, telephone or a toy (whatever) just because you found it in your private property? Typically there are only very limited circumstances you can do this one being strong likelihood that the thing is of low value and abandoned at the same time, second if you incur some loses/expenses because of keeping the thing that exceed its value.


A rhetoric question:

So, in other words, if you leave your suitcase in front of my house, and me, being in rush to get my brain surgery done, push it to the garbage disposal area - I am faulty ?? I should postpone my brain surgery, and take every effort to find out the idiot who decided that my house is a better place to safeguard the loot ?? :D :D and God forbid, while I am safeguarding somebody's crap, if it so happens that there is a dead body or drugs, I gotta hang for you ?? :D

And even if it is a low value item, if you decide to sue me, I have to pay for my lawyer, and your lawyer, and the value of the item, said item having been deposited into MY PRIVATE property .. ???

And for Asia, not just for Singapore, I am yet to see some reference to this law .. seriously .. And that also makes sense when people are terrified to handle lost items, lest be forced to pay for everything inside .. and ore, and be accused of having had more than what was lost .. thanks to laws like this ..

Above, I hope is a light hearted conversation .. but I am still keen to know how the law works ..


PS: you are not from UK are you ?? I am referring to the squatters rights, where the law says if you didn't secure your house, you are indirectly allowing squatters to move int ..

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9319
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Fri, 03 Jun 2011 3:30 pm

ecureilx wrote:A rhetoric question:

So, in other words, if you leave your suitcase in front of my house, and me, being in rush to get my brain surgery done, push it to the garbage disposal area - I am faulty ?? I should postpone my brain surgery, and take every effort to find out the idiot who decided that my house is a better place to safeguard the loot ?? :D :D and God forbid, while I am safeguarding somebody's crap, if it so happens that there is a dead body or drugs, I gotta hang for you ?? :D

What your example has to do with mine or the OP case?
- nobody requests from you to find the owner
- nobody requests from you to safeguard it
- nobody requests from you to jeopardize any way your health

Don't you see the difference between the above and active disposal/damage of somebody's property? If not then maybe you should not wait with this brain surgery afterall :)
Stick to the case and not wander around expanding the plot to some specific not applicable to this case scenarios that are convenient to you to prove your point.




And even if it is a low value item, if you decide to sue me, I have to pay for my lawyer, and your lawyer, and the value of the item, said item having been deposited into MY PRIVATE property .. ???

You can sue the owner for the storage or removal costs. As simple as this.

And for Asia, not just for Singapore, I am yet to see some reference to this law .. seriously .. And that also makes sense when people are terrified to handle lost items, lest be forced to pay for everything inside .. and ore, and be accused of having had more than what was lost .. thanks to laws like this ..

Above, I hope is a light hearted conversation .. but I am still keen to know how the law works ..

I am sorry but I am not going to be bothered - I am not moving that freely in the local statues and this would cost me probably too much time.
Normally this would be rather a specific law allowing you to dispose rather than not to dispose. In other words there is a general low protecting the property and this protection is not given only if there is a more specific law overriding it. The property is protected in most of the systems so I can blindly make a bet of a beer or two that Singapore is here no different.


PS: you are not from UK are you ?? I am referring to the squatters rights, where the law says if you didn't secure your house, you are indirectly allowing squatters to move int ..

I am not but in my country (within EU) the law says almost exactly the same. What you probably don't know the EU law is here even more absurd (or so it appears) as you can not freely remove such squatters even if the property was secured but you failed to notice their presence in reasonable time. This is a result of something called "protection of possession".

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Postby JR8 » Mon, 06 Jun 2011 3:20 am

This thread surely is a wind-up. Beretta Barri, the 6 year old who's life almost fell apart (as did her parents apparently) upon dropping the plush toy Titi, she quite immaturely still carried around.

beppi
Manager
Manager
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu, 07 Sep 2006
Location: Ahlongistan (O$P$)

Postby beppi » Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:22 pm

This won't help the OP, but as a clarification for those posters who explored the legal side of the issue:
The point whether the shop owner is liable is moot, since in Singapore, even if the case is taken up by the court (unlikely!), the losing side pays the direct financial damages (here: stuffed toy < $50) and NOT the winning parties legal fees (here: certainly over S$1000). So, only fools would go through a lawsuit! (That latter is true in lawsuit-heavy countries, too, but there the fools too often win!)

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9319
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:43 pm

beppi wrote:This won't help the OP, but as a clarification for those posters who explored the legal side of the issue:
The point whether the shop owner is liable is moot, since in Singapore, even if the case is taken up by the court (unlikely!), the losing side pays the direct financial damages (here: stuffed toy < $50) and NOT the winning parties legal fees (here: certainly over S$1000).

You can claim the legal expenses in a separate trial. Whether it makes any financial sense or not is a different story but I do not really think this whole case is about recovering some money.

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9812
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

legal

Postby ecureilx » Mon, 06 Jun 2011 1:26 pm

firstly, x9200: you are such a spoil sport .. I was able learn a few things here, such as how to pass the buck to somebody, how to waste the cop's time, and on top of it, blame somebody for your loosing your stuff, and also charge the person for not showing due care and love and safeguarding your property :D :D

Whatever that means.

Beppi: for cases below S$ 10,000 you can approach small claims court ..

Then again, I am still amused at the thought of enforcing such a silly law here, nevermind if such a law exists in Singapore .. and I was relating this to a friend, who manages a few restaurants here .. he welcome Barrre to leave his/her toy and said he is more than happy to demonstrate what they do with the leftovers consider not valuable .. STRAIGHT TO THE GARBAGE CHUTE ... and if at all, there is space in their 10ftX 5ft office, maybe kept for day, but most unlikely

I love this suing culture .. Bring it on :D :D

Graciousness and community mindedness can only go to some extent: when you enforce laws where people have community spiritedness, and threaten them, then you breed the concept of 'turn the other side, lest I be accused for complicating the matter'

PS: In an un-related note, I was talking to a designer of specialised service vehicles, and I was asking why some technology moves so slow: and why only few car companies dominate .. and the answer was: before you start to sell a car, keep aside a billion $ to pay for idiots who crashed the car - regardless the car met every safety standard, and then sue the car maker for the reason such as not sticking a note saying "Not to be driven but morons .. " etc ...

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9319
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Mon, 06 Jun 2011 2:40 pm

Ecureilx, this are mostly theoretical (on the discussed ground) consideration. I would not (and probably nobody here) bother to sue someone for a lost toy unless this person really p*** me **f. It is mostly about knowing what are your rights. BTW, you are right with SCT - strangely enough this is one of few types only that is under its jurisdiction.

User avatar
ksl
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6005
Joined: Mon, 19 Jul 2004
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Postby ksl » Mon, 06 Jun 2011 3:13 pm

Actually after reading the whole thread, I would believe it all to be more of a commonsense approach, if someone left something behind, a consumer would expect to return to either find it still there or stolen.

Mum acted in a commonsense way, to show to her child she was doing everything possible to find the toy.

Though in a Country like Singapore, the good, bad and the ugly, exist like anywhere else in the world, though commonsense is lacking in Singapore, as we see time and time again in many areas of society.

This is fact not fiction and there are plenty of court cases to prove the point that some people just do not have commonsense here!

Even if a suitcase was in anyone's way, they have no right to kick it out of the way full stop, the act is in the kick, not the moving of the object if it is obstructing. Ignorance of the law is no excuse either! No matter how amusing it may appear.

ecureilx shows us the light quite well, and the typical Singaporean attitude, though if it was his suitcase he was talking about being kicked out of the way, it would be another matter So I see it as a typical response from what kind of person?.

Maybe the shop keeper kept it for their own kids for all we know and had no intentions of returning it though that would be stealing right ecureilx? Or maybe not in Singapore!

So ecureilx i would love to see your reaction at the hawker, if the old auntie comes along and tosses your meal in the bin, while you are relieving yourself in the toilet :lol: Now now, tell the truth! How would the typical Singaporean react? :P

The shop keeper didn't really care, has it didn't have much value, they thought! If it had been a camera or a watch it may have been different, but a child's toy, no chance. Commonsense would have said different; Commonsense
adj. based common sense, exhibiting good judgment

True we do find them in all walks of life, but more in some societies than others.
Last edited by ksl on Mon, 06 Jun 2011 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9319
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Mon, 06 Jun 2011 3:25 pm

+1


Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests