HDB's mistake but she's made to pay - 4 years later
-
yes....IDA was not at fault paying millionsOriginally posted by deathbait:It is also interesting to note how easily ppl here a persuaded it is the government's fault when something goes wrong.
The only error HDB made was giving the woman money in the first place. It was not a retraction of payment. It's not some small print that gave HDB the right to take back money anytime. The fact of the matter is, the woman was never entitled to the 18k in the first place.
I'm constantly amused by how some of you complain the PAP is dirty, and then turn around and support parties who are fighting dirtier. The article posted by TS is just short of slander.
-
you're twisting this around.Originally posted by sbst275:The problem is, why should the lady be made to suffer for other ppl's mistake?
The old lady benefited from the mistake 4 years ago. There is no grey area here. She has to pay it back.
It's like if you accidentally put 18k in my account now, and then try to call me to get it back for 4 years. 4 years later, you finally corner me and demand the 18k back. Why should I be made to suffer for YOUR mistake, I ask you. Does this sound right?
Just because HDB is an organisation and not a person does not make the debt any less legit. -
Benefited? She gave up her stall and have no income from it all these years. If the money is taken back, who's to compensate for her loss of income?Originally posted by deathbait:you're twisting this around.
The old lady benefited from the mistake 4 years ago. There is no grey area here. She has to pay it back.
It's like if you accidentally put 18k in my account now, and then try to call me to get it back for 4 years. 4 years later, you finally corner me and demand the 18k back. Why should I be made to suffer for YOUR mistake, I ask you. Does this sound right?
Just because HDB is an organisation and not a person does not make the debt any less legit. -
why not you pay the 18k for her?Originally posted by UandMe:Benefited? She gave up her stall and have no income from it all these years. If the money is taken back, who's to compensate for her loss of income?
since you feel so strongly against HDB....
you pay lah... then you have the moral ground to complain.... -
some Ppl still brainwashed by government wat..Originally posted by tripwire:why not you pay the 18k for her? since you feel so strongly against HDB....
you pay lah... then you have the moral ground to complain.... -
the problem here is, you're letting external irrelavent factors cloud your judgement.Originally posted by UandMe:Benefited? She gave up her stall and have no income from it all these years. If the money is taken back, who's to compensate for her loss of income?
She was given the choice of a new stall or to stop renting the stall. She chose to stop renting. The contract stated no compensation. She signed it.
Why should ANYONE compensate her for her poor judgement? Who's going to compensate me if the market crashes tommorow and I lose a bundle? -
So wat is the truth now?Originally posted by deathbait:the problem here is, you're letting external irrelavent factors cloud your judgement.
She was given the choice of a new stall or to stop renting the stall. She chose to stop renting. The contract stated no compensation. She signed it.
Why should ANYONE compensate her for her poor judgement? Who's going to compensate me if the market crashes tommorow and I lose a bundle?
HDB made mistake themselves and told her she can get compensation even though the contract stated no. Or they told her no compensation but accidentally gave her the money and she kept quiet when she got it?
If it's the latter, then yes she should pay back.
If not, next time i know how to cheat people already. -
Asking someone to return the money which you made an mistake. It's behaving as if you are NOT honouring the mistake you made. Like this next time, I can say or do anything I like but no one would believe me because wat I say is bo par kei oneOriginally posted by deathbait:you're twisting this around.
The old lady benefited from the mistake 4 years ago. There is no grey area here. She has to pay it back.
It's like if you accidentally put 18k in my account now, and then try to call me to get it back for 4 years. 4 years later, you finally corner me and demand the 18k back. Why should I be made to suffer for YOUR mistake, I ask you. Does this sound right?
Just because HDB is an organisation and not a person does not make the debt any less legit.
Even if it's me, I wun even dare to ask for the money back, it's alrdy very embarrassing for such mistakes or oversight to occur needless to say asking for that $18k..
and why wait till 4 years later?
-
if she had continued to operate the stall when HDB did not take it back, she would have earned,
500 (min est) X 12 X 4 = 24 000
HDB shld give them another 6k instead
I say they shld sue HDB -
let's blow this thing up, so she won't have to pay.
-
sue HDB? sure or not broOriginally posted by Xtrider:if she had continued to operate the stall when HDB did not take it back, she would have earned,
500 (min est) X 12 X 4 = 24 000
HDB shld give them another 6k instead
I say they shld sue HDB -
no need la...threaten and plaster this everywhere can liao..suing for 6k is a waste of moneyOriginally posted by FBI:sue HDB? sure or not bro -
Your argument is flawed. Let me tell you why. In the case of your example of putting money accidentally into my bank account, there was no consideration from my part. If its an honest mistake, I am legally obliged to return you the sum if Im not the intended receipient of the sum.Originally posted by deathbait:you're twisting this around.
The old lady benefited from the mistake 4 years ago. There is no grey area here. She has to pay it back.
It's like if you accidentally put 18k in my account now, and then try to call me to get it back for 4 years. 4 years later, you finally corner me and demand the 18k back. Why should I be made to suffer for YOUR mistake, I ask you. Does this sound right?
Just because HDB is an organisation and not a person does not make the debt any less legit.
However, in this case, HDB asked that she give up her stall in exchange for the 18k. There is consideration involved and this is a done deal. To ask for the 18k back after 4 years is akin to reneging on your promise.
The appropriate example to use is that of a slimy businessman who after paying money for the goods he received decides to to ask for a refund 4 years later after he realises it was his mistake in ordering the wrong goods.
Tell me, In what way did she beneift from the 18k when the 18k was not at outright gift but a consideration awarded to her in exchange for giving up her livelihood?
The facts are clear: HDB offered her 18k ,and in exchange, she duly complied in the interest of HDB. HDB is clearly at fault and will the lady does not have a legal obligation to comply with HDB's request. -
HDB need to pay 24k to the old lady now.
Why? because based on report, 500/month = 6k/year = 24k for 4 yrs, so end up HDB still need to give the old lady 6k.
The old lady should counter sue HDB if there is a route to do so. -
My friend, as much as I love to agree with you,but I believe the law will see the payment and the contract as two separate transactions and as such two separate matters, will it not? And as such it does not follow when one argues that one leads to another?Originally posted by shade343:Tell me, In what way did she beneift from the 18k when the 18k was not at outright gift but a consideration awarded to her in exchange for giving up her livelihood?
The facts are clear: HDB offered her 18k ,and in exchange, she duly complied in the interest of HDB. HDB is clearly at fault and will the lady does not have a legal obligation to comply with HDB's request. -
stupid exques stupid hdb stupid goverment
-
This is so wrong. If she signed a contract that said she would not get compensation, she shouldn't get compensation. How open and shut does a case have to be?Originally posted by shade343:Your argument is flawed. Let me tell you why. In the case of your example of putting money accidentally into my bank account, there was no consideration from my part. If its an honest mistake, I am legally obliged to return you the sum if Im not the intended receipient of the sum.
However, in this case, HDB asked that she give up her stall in exchange for the 18k. There is consideration involved and this is a done deal. To ask for the 18k back after 4 years is akin to reneging on your promise.
The appropriate example to use is that of a slimy businessman who after paying money for the goods he received decides to to ask for a refund 4 years later after he realises it was his mistake in ordering the wrong goods.
Tell me, In what way did she beneift from the 18k when the 18k was not at outright gift but a consideration awarded to her in exchange for giving up her livelihood?
The facts are clear: HDB offered her 18k ,and in exchange, she duly complied in the interest of HDB. HDB is clearly at fault and will the lady does not have a legal obligation to comply with HDB's request.
The contract is there for a reason. If parties don't abide by the rules of contract, all trade would break down.
As for benefits... She benefited by having an 18k interest free loan. And before you scoff at that, pls ask around and see what you could earn from having an 18k interest free loan.
It doesn't matter what the old lady thought HDB meant. If she signed a contract that said no compensation, she should not have received one. She should not be expecting any pity now just because SHE misread the contract 4 years ago. If anything, she should be grateful no interest was charged on that money.
And we have only her word that HDB has not been contacting her for the last 4 years. HDB claims to have been trying to reach her. She has vested interest in avoiding HDB. I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say it. She may have known the money was illicit all along. -
now news in the media, and moreever the lady involved is a 75 yr old.
HDB will try to play the save face game. -
But the case here is probably that she signed a paper, which she probably did not understood a word of, stating that she will not that a single cent from her stall and someone telling her that she will be recieving 18k in compensation.Originally posted by deathbait:This is so wrong. If she signed a contract that said she would not get compensation, she shouldn't get compensation. How open and shut does a case have to be?
The contract is there for a reason. If parties don't abide by the rules of contract, all trade would break down.
As for benefits... She benefited by having an 18k interest free loan. And before you scoff at that, pls ask around and see what you could earn from having an 18k interest free loan.
It doesn't matter what the old lady thought HDB meant. If she signed a contract that said no compensation, she should not have received one. She should not be expecting any pity now just because SHE misread the contract 4 years ago. If anything, she should be grateful no interest was charged on that money.
And we have only her word that HDB has not been contacting her for the last 4 years. HDB claims to have been trying to reach her. She has vested interest in avoiding HDB. I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say it. She may have known the money was illicit all along.
If this is the case, HDB is definitely in the wrong. This is blatant cheating of an old woman.
The old lady here knows nothing except that she will be recieving 18k for her giving up her stall. Thats all. The contract signed is just like trap for her.... using sweets to con a baby.
This actually reminds me of those apple con jobs that we always see on crime watch where by old folks were cheated of their money. This is simliar except that they use a contract to make their con act a legal one. -
if you signed a contract without knowing its content.... whose fault isit in the first place?Originally posted by dibilo:But the case here is probably that she signed a paper, which she probably did not understood a word of, stating that she will not that a single cent from her stall and someone telling her that she will be recieving 18k in compensation.
If this is the case, HDB is definitely in the wrong. This is blatant cheating of an old woman.
The old lady here knows nothing except that she will be recieving 18k for her giving up her stall. Thats all. The contract signed is just like trap for her.... using sweets to con a baby.
This actually reminds me of those apple con jobs that we always see on crime watch where by old folks were cheated of their money. This is simliar except that they use a contract to make their con act a legal one.
and you are arguing on the assumption that she does not understand the contract.... but is she really so innocent? -
many people are just too emotional... 75 yr old lady... so must pity her...Originally posted by stellazio:now news in the media, and moreever the lady involved is a 75 yr old.
HDB will try to play the save face game.
what if the other fella is not a 75 yr old lady.. but a drug addict with long list of criminal record? -
If this is shown to be a case of ill intent or gross negligence on the part of HDB, then the fact that there are such agents in HDB or any other government bodies is highly disturbing because it is a clear betrayal of the social compact implicit in the duties of a civil servant. A disloyal corrupt bureaucracy is a poisonous presence in the heart of any country.
Will this be shown to be so? I doubt it, unless there are still powerful political players who have the good of the nation at heart or the truth of the matter is otherwise than that which has been reported so far. -
[3] Undue influence
A defense based on undue influence may arise where:
one party takes advantage of the other party's position of weakness, e.g., based on age, illness, mental state, intoxication, etc., thus preventing the latter from exercising free will in the transaction; or one party breaches a fiduciary relationship with the other party.
Business contracts between an attorney and his client are presumptively invalid but can be overcome if the attorney demonstrates that:
1) the transaction was fair and equitable;
2) the attorney informed the client of the nature and consequences of the transaction;
3) the attorney fully disclosed his own interest in the matter; and
4) the attorney encouraged the client to obtain independent advice or rendered the client the type of advice that a disinterested attorney would have given a client.
Based on her current age of 75 y.o., that would place her around the age of 71 y.o. during the time of the event. Does a 71 y.o. granny know English to sufficiently enable her to understand the terms of the contract? I wonder if there was an attorney present to explain the details of the contract? I think most often the contracts you sign they don't have any lawyers present. Does this mean that if I go around concluding highly unfavourable contracts with the aged without the presence of a lawyer, these contracts will be binding just because it's a contract and they signed it? -
For all the bad things a bureaucracy represents, you can always be assured that it does not micro manage and play small games with individuals. This is not one big sinister ploy to swindle 18k from an old lady.Originally posted by dibilo:But the case here is probably that she signed a paper, which she probably did not understood a word of, stating that she will not that a single cent from her stall and someone telling her that she will be recieving 18k in compensation.
If this is the case, HDB is definitely in the wrong. This is blatant cheating of an old woman.
The old lady here knows nothing except that she will be recieving 18k for her giving up her stall. Thats all. The contract signed is just like trap for her.... using sweets to con a baby.
This actually reminds me of those apple con jobs that we always see on crime watch where by old folks were cheated of their money. This is simliar except that they use a contract to make their con act a legal one.
I had to read the article again to be sure, but there it is in the 3rd paragraph. The old lady was advised by her daughter. This is not a scam targetted at the illiterate elderly. If the old lady was ill advised by anyone, it was her daughter.
If you wish to further debate this matter, I urge you to read the official newspaper report for details i may have missed. -
... I feel, whatever the views on this matter, the crux of it was that HDB admitted to the mistake, the mistake WAS made by HDB... on top of it, the mistake was realized 4 YEARS LATER... (wah lan...First World and World Class mistake)
... the problem in this regard, is that the Law here, is very modifiable & largely protects the administration more than the people...
... besides, what's $18,000.00 lost to one individual compared to the many BILLIONS lost to screwed up investment abroad using people's money??