Some internet posts have suggested suing Clemen Chiang for their trading losses. Is this possible?
My view is that this would be difficult but not impossible. Some questions to consider - did he promise a fool-proof no-loss trading method in his course? If he did, then perhaps you could sue provided you followed his instructions exactly.
On the other hand, if he taught you methods that do not work at all. That would be a breach of an implied term in the contract between you and him for him to provide you with knowledge of options trading. Not very familiar with options so can't really say for sure, but my view is you would need other options experts to come to court to prove that his methods do not work at all. All in all, claiming your losses would not be easy.
Consult your lawyer if the amounts involved are large to make a claim worth your while.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Clemen Chiang, Freely Business School 4
This post is about teaching standards at commercial schools and training organisations including Clemen Chiang's.
If a school or trainer does not keep its/his promises, then you can sue them for breach of contract. However, what kind of level of teaching can we expect from the school or trainer - this is not easy to determine. There will be of course some clear cases. For example, if a school promises to prepare you to take the 'A-level" General Mathematics examination but only teaches you basic arithmetic, that would be a clear case of breach of contract. On the other hand, if it teaches you calculus in a confusing way, is it their fault or your fault for not understanding?
Proving that teaching or training is below the standard that can be reasonably expected is time-consuming and messy. It is interesting to note that based on newspaper reports, the claims against Clemen Chiang are based more on his lack of educational credentials then on the standard of his teaching. Some internet posts claim that his teaching is not worth much but this is hard to verify. Teaching standards even amoung Singapore government schools vary greatly, so it would be difficult to say if the teaching of Clemen Chiang was up to the expected standard.
In Singapore, on the other hand, the usual test of a good teacher is what "paper" (i.e. qualifications) he has.
If a school or trainer does not keep its/his promises, then you can sue them for breach of contract. However, what kind of level of teaching can we expect from the school or trainer - this is not easy to determine. There will be of course some clear cases. For example, if a school promises to prepare you to take the 'A-level" General Mathematics examination but only teaches you basic arithmetic, that would be a clear case of breach of contract. On the other hand, if it teaches you calculus in a confusing way, is it their fault or your fault for not understanding?
Proving that teaching or training is below the standard that can be reasonably expected is time-consuming and messy. It is interesting to note that based on newspaper reports, the claims against Clemen Chiang are based more on his lack of educational credentials then on the standard of his teaching. Some internet posts claim that his teaching is not worth much but this is hard to verify. Teaching standards even amoung Singapore government schools vary greatly, so it would be difficult to say if the teaching of Clemen Chiang was up to the expected standard.
In Singapore, on the other hand, the usual test of a good teacher is what "paper" (i.e. qualifications) he has.
Legal jargon
This post will clarify some legal terms which you may encounter when suing in the Tribunal. These terms may have been explained in earlier posts.
Jurisidiction - the power of the Tribunal to decide claims. The Tribunal can only hear some types of cases depending on the dollar amount and the type of claim.
Enforcement - also known as execution. This refers to the procedures to seize assets of the debtor if he does not pay even after you have won the case against him.
Evidence - facts in support of your case. This may include personal accounts of what was witnessed, documents and photographs.
Hearsay - oral or written reports by persons who are not telling their story in court. Normally, such reports are considered hearsay and not allowed since these persons are not in court to tell their story. This area of law is complicated.
Mediation - a procedure where a 3rd party tries to persuade both parties not to figt their case fully, but to settle it. The settlement may include one party paying some money or correcting certain defects. Note that agreement to settlement is voluntary - either party may decide that they wish to carry on with the claim.
Jurisidiction - the power of the Tribunal to decide claims. The Tribunal can only hear some types of cases depending on the dollar amount and the type of claim.
Enforcement - also known as execution. This refers to the procedures to seize assets of the debtor if he does not pay even after you have won the case against him.
Evidence - facts in support of your case. This may include personal accounts of what was witnessed, documents and photographs.
Hearsay - oral or written reports by persons who are not telling their story in court. Normally, such reports are considered hearsay and not allowed since these persons are not in court to tell their story. This area of law is complicated.
Mediation - a procedure where a 3rd party tries to persuade both parties not to figt their case fully, but to settle it. The settlement may include one party paying some money or correcting certain defects. Note that agreement to settlement is voluntary - either party may decide that they wish to carry on with the claim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)