Food poisoning cases

Some readers suffer food poisoning as a result of eating at a particular restaurant or fast food joint. If proven, this would be a breach of an implied promise by the food outlet to serve you hygienic food. You can claim for your medical expenses, loss of income and pain and suffering. Of course, in most cases, your damages are not likely to be in the thousands of dollars or even hundreds of dollars range.

Proof is also another problem. Because we consume numerous types of food, it is difficult to know the source of any poisoning, especially since symptoms may not occur immediately. However, if several persons eating at the same place all had the same poisoning, the case becomes stronger - in other words, the greater the number of customers affected, the stronger your case. Alternatively, if enough persons fall ill, complain to the National Environment Agency which regulates food outlets. They should be able to investigate and the results of the investigation may support your case

Defamation suits against complainants and consumers

A reader has asked whether you can be sued for defamation over your Small Claims Tribunal claim against a company. You cannot be sued for defamation as regards your claims in any lawsuit or in respect of anything you say inside court. This is called absolute privilege.

However, as regards what you say outside court - beware. The defence of qualified privilege (which is partial protection) might protect you if you make your defamatory comments only to those who have a duty or interest in receiving your comments. 2 examples of this -

a)complaints to the government regulator of the company you are complaining about;

b)complaints about the behaviour of a club or association member in relation to club matters, to fellow members of a club of which you are also a member.

Please note that being a busybody about other's behaviour may lead to you losing this protection of qualified privilege.

Casey Chua correction

A reader has corrected me - Casey Chua claimed a doctorate in psychology and not hypnotherapy.

Thanks

Options guru sells house

A source informs me that a well-known "options expert" had sold his multi-million dollar house on Sentosa. However, completion (the time when the contract is completed and most of the price is paid by the buyer) is not due for several months.

Liquidation of assets takes place often when a person is facing a liquidity crunch eg when he faces numerous lawsuits.

Hypnotherapist dies in Court

Casey Chua, a defendant in the Small Claims Court, died suddenly in the court. He was being sued by for $60,000 by 11 claimants over his claims that he had a doctorate in hypnotherapy and 25 years' practice in this field. The claimants were suing for return of their course fees and their associate fees to his hypnotherapy centre.

Mr Chua had earlier refused to show proof of his qualifications but later stated that he received his doctorate from a university (East View University) that does not appear to be accredited in the United States of America.

It is unclear if the lawsuits against him would carry on. The general rule is that the death of a defendant does not terminate a lawsuit. The claims could thus continue against Mr Chua's estate. In this case, those handling his assets (his personal representatives) would have to pay off his debts against court judgments against him before they can distribute his assets. However, the procedure is slightly complicated (for more on this area, see the Probate and Administration Act).

Getting out of a contract

Someone inquired about getting out of a contract. However, this query is extremely vague as it could mean any of the following -

a) not wanting to perform any future obligations under the contract but not wanting to have anything to do with the other party either;

b) wanting to terminate the contract and recover all of some payments previously made to the other party, because of a change of mind about wanting the benefit of the contract; and

c) same as b) except that the other party is alleged to have done something wrong under the contract.


Option b) is normally not valid since both parties have signed a contract and it cannot be changed without both parties agreeing.

a) is possible but if you owe money under the contract, it is possible that the other party may sue you.

c) is the most likely option. There are 2 main legal arguments used to terminate a contract -

1. if the other party did something wrong before the contract eg made a false statement of fact (called a misrepresentation) to you, such as telling you that certain beauty treatment was compatible with the medication that you were on; or

2. if the other party breached an express or implied term of the contract which was an important promise in the whole contract.

However, in both cases, recovering all or some of your payments will require going to the Small Claims Tribunal.