Is this unjust or is this unjust?
-
that's all you can do is it? name-calling?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I was replying to allentyb_v2.01 saying that they have a recourse in the courts.
Idiot.
if i have misunderstood your words, i can apologize. sorry.
but you might want to reply to my query that that agreement to sell the stall is void, if you can get a good legal answer to it. if not, i can call a lawyer to get his opinion on this issue, whether is the new offer legally binding?
i pleasantly await your reply.
and today i have finally under stood your true nature.
no avenue of discourse since your mindset is already fixed.
anyone that agrees with you is to be applauded, even how stupid their posts.
anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot, even though they are trying to have a decent argument and may even have a point.
anyway i have finished downloading my files and am going out now.
i hope to see your wonderful reply to my query by tonight, if ever you do reply to the queries that others point out on the fallacies of your argument.
Good day gentleman
-
I am not jealous of her, i merely looking at a neutral point of view, the family mention, 'they don't mind paying back the money and the reason why HDB has to send out a letter of demand is because HDB try to contact her but couldn't until last year, which is b u l l s h i t, and so it is the last resort that HDB has to make, this is standard practice.........Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:...even if bored, she is so rich like you say, she cannot go on round the world trips and pay for her friends to go with her?
You keep talking about the house that she stays in. She did not pay for it by herself. Why should you be jealous of her? The issue is whether an injustice was done on her. They made a mistake and sent her a threatening letter. Gross injustice.
The fact that, HDB make a mistake, that bloody article, is to show that HDB is doing their job, and the article, emphasis on too much on HDB point of view aka make HDB look good, oh well, but it is their duty to do so, but look at this way, till this very moment, if you truly want justice so bad, they will fight in court
even that stupid case about a small claim towards the insurance company, can go all the way to court of appeal, why not, if someone truly want justice to be done, one should do so, lawyer fees are expensive, because the case drag for too long!
oh god, we cannot decide whether any injustice occur or not, because of the every fact that, both of them are wrong! Its for the court to decide whether who is more to be blame in this matter, and from the looks of it, either they settle the case with HDB, or they still have to appear in court to fight the case, maybe HDB will settle for a lesser amount, and there is no loss of income, because she agree to give up the stall, in the first place, and it is not as if, she has been forced to do so, and during that time, she has a choice between giving up a stall, or temporary settle for a stall while the place is upgrading or renovating, but she choose the compensation
now she wants the new stall, ironic, as she given up the stall in the first place due to the fact that her friends are still there, and she IS BORED
my god, she is not poor, as her family can pay back the money, and i am not cursing at her at all, and i am not blaming her
I have emphasis, time after time, HDB screwed up, but not once did i mention, that the woman is totally at fault. You push all the fault towards HDB, which is why i said that you are living in self delusion, there are times when it is clear cut that the government screwed up totally, f u c ked up policy which i mention, in this thread and the reason why i mention is because, i am listing example of clear cut B U L L S H I T, and if anybody out there which included the bear, still insist on supporting a government who is not thinking for the mass which is the commoner, there will comes, a time, that the PAP will fall, and they will goes down with them, and by that time, i will laugh at them so hard and mock them till their death
I am not just blind cursing at all matter, I know what i am typing, and i can differentiates between totally screwed up policy and public duty! -
allentyb_v2.01: you should learn a lesson from this idiot.Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:
He made a stupid mistake and tried to defend his stupidity, making himself look more and more like a fool, but he stopped because he knows if he carries on, he will just look like a bigger and bigger fool.Originally posted by Father Lim:that's all you can do is it? name-calling?
if i have misunderstood your words, i can apologize. sorry.
Unfortunately, he fails to recognize his stupidity and tried to blame others...
...suggesting that we will be seeing more idiotic comments form him.Originally posted by Father Lim:and today i have finally under stood your true nature.
no avenue of discourse since your mindset is already fixed.
anyone that agrees with you is to be applauded, even how stupid their posts.
anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot, even though they are trying to have a decent argument and may even have a point. -
You talk like this because it is not your money....Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:even that stupid case about a small claim towards the insurance company, can go all the way to court of appeal, why not, if someone truly want justice to be done, one should do so, lawyer fees are expensive, because the case drag for too long! -
no, i didn't stop whatever i am doing, i continue on and on, and please stop trying to defend yourself, because you are wrong, you only keep insisting on only one thing, that is - consideration, when someone already point out your mistake but yet, you fail to acknowledge it,Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You talk like this because it is not your money....
do you know that this post is a slap to your own face, i can also said that you are talking like as if this is your money also, the family already mentioned that they can return back the money!
it is you who fail to understand any single thing that i have typed so far, insisting on your own self delusion point of view, as a result, one more person, is flaming you back! -
If you fail to understand your own mistake, then i will keep on and on repeating what is necessary to make you understand, i will not back off, i really don't want to name you as a moron anymore, unless you get on my nerves more
Please don't selective posting anymore, what you only post is a mere fraction of what i have posted, so do yourself a favour, read the article again, before even attempt to argue with me, i already point out all your mistake, yet you can't even admit to it, you are evading all the post that i have make, only quote a few mere sentence of what i have posted
Do yourself a favour, stop quoting me, you already suck at argue, simply because you can't even type, and still try to save your own face, goodness
Time after time, i have successfully argue back all your post, yet you only merely able to reply with so little words, if you run out of words to type, stop typing, and stop repeating yourself, please, otherwise, i will return back typing in caps lock, SO THAT IN HOPE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND A BLOODY THING -
Obviously you never learn anything. What do you mean, when you say, '- consideration, when someone already point out your mistake but yet, you fail to acknowledge it,'Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:no, i didn't stop whatever i am doing, i continue on and on, and please stop trying to defend yourself, because you are wrong, you only keep insisting on only one thing, that is - consideration, when someone already point out your mistake but yet, you fail to acknowledge it,
do you know that this post is a slap to your own face, i can also said that you are talking like as if this is your money also, the family already mentioned that they can return back the money!
it is you who fail to understand any single thing that i have typed so far, insisting on your own self delusion point of view, as a result, one more person, is flaming you back!
How did he point out that when I said there was an agreement because there was 'consideration'? You don't understand what he is talking about do you? Everything is in a blur to you but you do not know it.
Yes he is also flaming me like you and he just admitted he is an idiot and apologized for it, didn't you see? You refuse to admit that you are an idiot that is all. -
READ THE WHOLE ENTIRE POST OR AT LEAST QUOTE EVERYTHING AND STOP QUOTING ONLY A MERE FRACTION OF WHAT I HAVE POSTED
I am not jealous of her, i merely looking at a neutral point of view, the family mention, 'they don't mind paying back the money and the reason why HDB has to send out a letter of demand is because HDB try to contact her but couldn't until last year, which is b u l l s h i t, and so it is the last resort that HDB has to make, this is standard practice.........
The fact that, HDB make a mistake, that bloody article, is to show that HDB is doing their job, and the article, emphasis on too much on HDB point of view aka make HDB look good, oh well, but it is their duty to do so, but look at this way, till this very moment, if you truly want justice so bad, they will fight in court
even that stupid case about a small claim towards the insurance company, can go all the way to court of appeal, why not, if someone truly want justice to be done, one should do so, lawyer fees are expensive, because the case drag for too long!
oh god, we cannot decide whether any injustice occur or not, because of the every fact that, both of them are wrong! Its for the court to decide whether who is more to be blame in this matter, and from the looks of it, either they settle the case with HDB, or they still have to appear in court to fight the case, maybe HDB will settle for a lesser amount, and there is no loss of income, because she agree to give up the stall, in the first place, and it is not as if, she has been forced to do so, and during that time, she has a choice between giving up a stall, or temporary settle for a stall while the place is upgrading or renovating, but she choose the compensation
now she wants the new stall, ironic, as she given up the stall in the first place due to the fact that her friends are still there, and she IS BORED
my god, she is not poor, as her family can pay back the money, and i am not cursing at her at all, and i am not blaming her
I have emphasis, time after time, HDB screwed up, but not once did i mention, that the woman is totally at fault. You push all the fault towards HDB, which is why i said that you are living in self delusion, there are times when it is clear cut that the government screwed up totally, f u c ked up policy which i mention, in this thread and the reason why i mention is because, i am listing example of clear cut B U L L S H I T, and if anybody out there which included the bear, still insist on supporting a government who is not thinking for the mass which is the commoner, there will comes, a time, that the PAP will fall, and they will goes down with them, and by that time, i will laugh at them so hard and mock them till their death
I am not just blind cursing at all matter, I know what i am typing, and i can differentiates between totally screwed up policy and public duty! -
How can both of them be wrong? They made her an offer and she is in the wrong for accepting it?Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:READ THE WHOLE ENTIRE POST OR AT LEAST QUOTE EVERYTHING AND STOP QUOTING ONLY A MERE FRACTION OF WHAT I HAVE POSTED
She should have asked them about the agreement made in 1993? They made her a new offer in 2004 and she accepted.
How is she to know that they made a mistake? -
Beside keep mentioning, consideration, what else, can you said, i already mention very clear, what is your fault, and he already mention, that agreement is void so there is no consideration to be consider, i don't know how many times, i have to mention to you at all, and since he also copy and paste to you what is common law, but still you want to argue so much, but yet, you are avoiding a lot of what we have been posted in the thread, and merely quote what i deem as selective reading, and stop quoting people, and make it 'look' like you are right, because you are not right,Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Obviously you never learn anything. What do you mean, when you say, '- consideration, when someone already point out your mistake but yet, you fail to acknowledge it,'
How did he point out that when I said there was an agreement because there was 'consideration'? You don't understand what he is talking about do you? Everything is in a blur to you but you do not know it.
Yes he is also flaming me like you and he just admitted he is an idiot and apologized for it, didn't you see? You refuse to admit that you are an idiot that is all.
i already mention time and time again, given the fact that 1993 agreement that stated that she is not entitled to any compensation at all, she shouldn't accept the cheque at all, but still, she goes into an agreement with HDB that HDB will compensate her with 18k, but this agreement will be voided!
thats why, there is no consideration to be consider at all, though i never read law before, but i understand this very clearly, THE FAMILY DON'T MIND PAYING BACK THE MONEY
Can you at least, type at least more than i typed so far, and please don't make me repeat myself again, if you can't think of something new to say, and move on, you are really a fool, and i don't mind, entertaining a fool time and time again, till he understand his own mistake, and the more dragging the thread is, the more idiotic, it will look on you, because you can't even type half of the length of my post, still you want to argue, why not, just stick to your report on the market and stock prices. -
You see the part in red? He acknowledges that there was an agreement unlike you that said,Originally posted by Father Lim: 12 January 2008 · 03:05 PMbut you might want to reply to my query that that agreement to sell the stall is void, if you can get a good legal answer to it. if not, i can call a lawyer to get his opinion on this issue, whether is the new offer legally binding?Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01: 11 January 2008 · 11:54 AMWILL =/= AGREEMENTOriginally posted by allentyb_v2.01: 11 January 2008 · 12:24 PMthat freaking agreement is the LAST SIGNED WITH HDB, you MORON, that is what they refer to, if there is a 2004 agreement, they would have use it, HUH?Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01: 11 January 2008 · 12:34 PMTHE WHOLE ENTIRE DAMNED ARTICLE NEVER EVEN SHOW ANY 2004 AGREEMENT AT ALL, YOU ARE JUST GUESSING, HOW ON EARTH, CAN YOU UNDERSTAND
WAIT A SEC, YOU ARE A MORONIC FELLOW
and so on and so on... and you fail to see what a fool you are... when the other idiot said: "that that agreement " it was a slap in your face and yet you do not recognize it. When do you intend to stop making yourself look like a big fool?Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01: 11 January 2008 · 12:39 PMA VERY SIMPLE QUESTION FOR YOU AGAIN,
IF THERE IS AN AGREEMENT, WHY ISN'T IT REPORTED IN THE ARTICLE, EVEN THERE IS AN 2004 AGREEMENT AND YOU KEEP MENTIONING ABOUT A 2004 AGREEMENT, BUT THAT TIME, SHE ALREADY GIVEN UP THE STALL, SHE DOESN'T NEED ANOTHER NEW AGREEMENT -
They are both in the wrong, it is becauseOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:How can both of them be wrong? They made her an offer and she is in the wrong for accepting it? She should have asked them about the agreement made in 1993? They made her a new offer in 2004 and she accepted.
How is she to know that they made a mistake?
A) HDB should have know the damn contract that already stated they don't have to pay her a single cent,
B) Mdm lee should have read the terms and condition in the contract when she has signed during 1993 before entering into another agreement,
All of this can be avoided, but who is more to be blamed, which can be debated,
this is critical - she is not entitle to any compensation at all!
this is the reason why, both of them are wrong
And i already highlighted a lot of times, she wants a new stall, and her family can repay back the money~~~ And till this very moment, you can't come up with a reasonable argument that can shut me up and father lim, i don't understand at all, it is not as if, mdm lee is poor and she can't repay back the money at all
and this is the scenario, then truly HDB will be totally in fault, but she is living in a semi detached house and her family can repay back the money, which is why, i am emphasis on this, not because she is rich, but she could pay back the money!
If she feels that she is not in the wrong and feel that the HDB is totally at fault, then they will not want to repay back the money!!!
Oh god, time after time, i urge you to read the article, now i have explain to you till this extent, this is how i judge your intelligent level -
... there you go again, you forgot about the new agreement again... and kept repeating the 1993 agreement....Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:They are both in the wrong, it is because
A) HDB should have know the damn contract that already stated they don't have to pay her a single cent,
B) Mdm lee should have read the terms and condition in the contract when she has signed during 1993 before entering into another agreement,
All of this can be avoided, but who is more to be blamed, which can be debated,
this is critical - she is not entitle to any compensation at all!
this is the reason why, both of them are wrong -
That 2004 agreement cannot be consider at all, due to the mistake that HDB has make in the first place, because of the 1993 agreement that has been signed, she is not entitle to any compensation at all
I ask you a question, don't even evade on it, if you evade on it, which will be self defeating
why did she accept the cheque of 18k in 2004 when the 1993 agreement that she signed with HDB, that clearly stated that she is not entitle of any compensation at all! If she have read the terms and conditions, she wouldn't have accept the cheque at all
If HDB aware of their mistake in the first place, they wouldn't have offer her the money already, but as soon as they realise their mistake which is in, 2004 as well!The officer informed the widowed mother of five that the HDB had made a mistake with the payout and the money had to be returned. According to the board, its earlier attempts to contact her since 2004 had failed.
In response to Today's queries, however, the HDB said that since 2004, it had sent several letters and gone to Mdm Lee's home to inform her to return the $18,000, an ex gratia payment given in respect of the loss of her stall. "However, all the attempts to contact Mdm Lee were futile," said a spokesperson.
All this, is from the article............... the agreement is already voided
no need for any considerations~~!
But all you could do IS, KEEP mentioning the word - consideration and you have been only insisting on this, but you don't have anything else to say at all!
Can you come up with something else to say, huh? -
Why not? You mean they cannot make her a new offer? Because she wouldn't have given up her stall if she they did not make her the new offer.Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:That 2004 agreement cannot be consider at all, due to the mistake that HDB has make in the first place, because of the 1993 agreement that has been signed, she is not entitle to any compensation at all
I ask you a question, don't even evade on it, if you evade on it, which will be self defeating
why did she accept the cheque of 18k in 2004 when the 1993 agreement that she signed with HDB, that clearly stated that she is not entitle of any compensation at all! If she have read the terms and conditions, she wouldn't have accept the cheque at all -
... and she was not required to give up her stall if they did not pay her....
-
Ok, fortunately, the victim in this situation happen to be well-to-do. But to be fair, is anyone going to be responsible for such mistake made? Or we just cross our finger that such incident don't happen to us?
-
So now, you are trying your very best and spotting on my mistake, fine, is this the only thing you can do now, trying to salvage as much face as possible, for f u c k sake, that 2004 agreement is already voided when HDB demand the money back!!!!
Do me a favour, back down, if you back down now, i will back down as well, otherwise this freaking thread has to continue on, until 20 pages and still going on, back down, my peace offering pact, not because i am wrong, but i am tired of trying to argue my post into your thick skull
but if you keep insisting on your grounds, as i can sense your pride is so much higher than the sky, but still i will not back down, this is a stalemate argument, because you refuse to admit any nonsense that you have typed so far is wrong, and frankly speaking, it is crap to read, and this debate and flaming is getting my toils -
... so now you are judge, jury and executioner? Delusional.Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:So now, you are trying your very best and spotting on my mistake, fine, is this the only thing you can do now, trying to salvage as much face as possible, for f u c k sake, that 2004 agreement is already voided when HDB demand the money back!!!! -
She doesn't need to give up her stall at all, she can move to a temporary area while it is renovating, still you never read that part i have posted, she choose to accept the 18k, PLEASE READ!!!!!!! (This is very debatable, who is more to be blame)Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... and she was not required to give up her stall if they did not pay her....Four years ago, she gave up her stall selling clothes at Hougang Ave 1 hawker centre. Upgrading works were in the pipeline, and stallholders had three options: They could give up their stalls, move to a temporary market across the road or set up shop at another location.
-
LALALALALALAOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:... so now you are judge, jury and executioner? Delusional.
If the agreement is not voided by HDB, they wouldn't have demand the money back, due to their mistake -
Oh my f u c king god, read the whole damn article
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... and she was not required to give up her stall if they did not pay her....
Isn't that what I said? That she does not have to give up the stall and she only had to give up the stall if she took the compensation.... after they paid her and she gave up the stall, they now say that the 2004 agreement don't count... and ass-holes like you think that is not an unjust thing to do.Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:She doesn't need to give up her stall at all, she can move to a temporary area while it is renovating, still you never read that part i have posted, she choose to accept the 18k, PLEASE READ!!!!!!! (This is very debatable, who is more to be blame)
Make an agreement and after people accept the agreement and give up the stall, then say the agreement does not count and she must pay back the money and that was 4 freaking years ago. -
... and what is your excuse for supporting this injustice? She got money. Ass-hole.
-
Now you are trying to put words into my mouth again, i never ever mention before, it is not an unjust thing to do.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Isn't that what I said? That she does not have to give up the stall and she only had to give up the stall if she took the compensation.... after they paid her and she gave up the stall, they now say that the 2004 agreement don't count... and ass-holes like you think that is not an unjust thing to do.
Make an agreement and after people accept the agreement and give up the stall, then say the agreement does not count and she must pay back the money and that was 4 freaking years ago.
I am looking at this at a neutral point of view, argue based on the article, but you refuse to understand thismoney paid out by mistake is claimable by law.
This has been mentioned by a lawyer
.
In cases where an innocent mistake is made and "there is an unexpected beneficiary to the mistake, the usual process is for the paying party to explain the situation and to make a claim