ACCA Law examination

If you have any queries relating to the ACCA Law paper, Singapore variant,

you are welcome to post to the blog -
http://accalawsg.blogspot.com/.

Depending on my time constraints, I will try to answer your queries.

True Spa - new allegations?

Some posters claim that True Spa tries to pressure its customers to buy more packages from the company.

I have no idea how persistent their sales persons are, but it is unlikely that this will constitute duress or undue influence which are quite different.

However, it is arguable but not certain that there is an implied term that any gym or spa will allow you to enjoy the facilities in peace. Extreme harassment and persistent high pressure tactics may well be a breach of the implied term allowing you to claim damages or perhaps to even terminate the contract. A lot will depend on how bad the situation is so no definite answer can be provided.

Hiring a lawyer

Should you hire a lawyer instead of using the Small Claims Tribunal?

The Tribunal process is cheap and simple but may be time consuming with several meetings for mediation, etc. A lawyer is definitely more expensive but may well save you time in the end.

If you can find several persons who have similar claims, then hiring a lawyer is much cheaper as the legal fees can be shared. However, note that a lot depends on the situation - for example, if the facts of each customer's situation are quite different, then the lawyer will have to do more work and therefore charge more.

Also, remember that when you sue in the normal courts and you win, you can recover most of your legal fees. But make sure that the other party will not go bust or your lawsuit win is not of much use.

Oral promises

Oral promises by vendors are difficult to prove. There are also legal difficulties, such as the parol evidence rule, which may sometimes prevent oral promises from being introduced. However, the main problem appears that the court has to decide who to believe - the vendor or the customer.

As mentioned previously, the use of tape recordings are very useful in proving your case. Even if you did not tape record the conversation in relation to which you are suing, if you can prove that the sales persons of the vendors systematically lie and over promise, you have a strong case but of course, there are no guarantees of winning.

On the other hand, if you are complaining only of hard selling, that this not normally a defence except perhaps in rare cases.

The best defence to bad vendors is information. If you are suing anyone, send me details and I will post details about your claim. If you have won a lawsuit, even better - let the whole world know about your win. Good luck and if in doubt, consult a lawyer.

Clemen Chiang, Freely Business School

It looks like Clemen Chiang will be liable for hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in compensation if his appeal to the High Court against the Small Claims Tribunal judgments do not succeed. Although he did business under the name Freely Business School, this appears to be a sole proprietorship, not a limited company (to be sure, those interested should do a full Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority search at

https://www.psi.gov.sg/NASApp/tmf/TMFServlet?app=MYBIZFILE-DIR-ENTITY#ClientValidationSummary, and pay the necessary fees.)

If he had used a limited company, as most readers will know, only his company will be liable for its debts, and not him personally.