HDB's mistake but she's made to pay - 4 years later
-
"Of course, the HDM is screwed up to allow such a mistake to occur. But the old lady noticing that an extra 18k was suddenly deposited in her bank should find something amiss.
Why? In the agreement, since the clause no compensation for the stall was in, there should not be a clause stating an 18K will be reimburse into her bank, so she should not even expect any money.
With an extra 18k in bank, and a monthly letter from the bank, it is obvious that the HDB has accidentally added that money.
It is the duty of everyone to return this kind of money. It is PUBLIC MONEY."
This is the main point. Forget about govt past mistakes, forget about sympathy for the lady, forget every other non relevant things.
Just focus on this logic. If there is a clause stating NO COMPENSATION, then there SHOULD BE NO CLAUSE STATING 18K WILL BE PAID. Otherwise, there will be a contradiction isn't it???
HENCE, WHEN SHE REALIZE 18K WAS DEPOSITED TO HER ACCOUNT, TOGETHER WITH THE MONTHLY BANK STATEMENT, SHE SHOULD REALIZE HDB MADE A MISTAKE AND SHE SHOULD HAVE DOUBLE CHECK WITH THE HDB ONCE MORE.
In short, it wasnt really wrong for HDB to ask back the money. -
Honestly, I agree with what deathbait have said about the old lady's honesty and integrity.
After reading the news, how can anyone not know that an extra 18k out of nowhere came.
I do doubt her honesty as this is the INDUCTIVE reasoning from my previous post.
Inductive reasoning may not be 100% correct unlike deductive reasoning used in mathematical reasoning whose truth of conclusion is always guaranteed.
Nevertheless, inductive reasoning is all we can use in this case. -
Too many xiao didi (little boys) in here, boys who should be spending more of their time in the Homework Forum rather than Speaker's Corner.
Fancy arguing with a little boy about what is right. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:Too many xiao didi (little boys) in here, boys who should be spending more of their time in the Homework Forum rather than Speaker's Corner.
Fancy arguing with a little boy about what is right.
They have no concept of what a new agreement is. It is like, you write a will 10 years ago, you cannot change your will today. The despots even change the CONSTITUTION for dubious reasons.
There was a 1993 agreement with the woman and therefore there can never be a 2004 agreement with the woman? Not only was there an offer, there was consideration to confirm that there was an agreement in the eyes of the law.
... and they complain I call them delusional people, and idiots. -
read the article in full againOriginally posted by shade343:Why should she payback when its HDB who is trying to renege on the deal?
the woman was not supposed to get the money. No deal is being reneged here. -
As usual you manage to miss the point.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
They have no concept of what a new agreement is. It is like, you write a will 10 years ago, you cannot change your will today. The despots even change the CONSTITUTION for dubious reasons.
There was a 1993 agreement with the woman and therefore there can never be a 2004 agreement with the woman? Not only was there an offer, there was consideration to confirm that there was an agreement in the eyes of the law.
... and they complain I call them delusional people, and idiots.
When a contract is signed, it is binding(provided no laws were broken).
You cannot unilaterally change a contract anytime you want. If that were possible, there might as well be no contract. -
Can't blame them, we were little boys once too and we know of our own shortcomings then. Suggest you ignore them, no point arguing with little boys.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
They have no concept of what a new agreement is. It is like, you write a will 10 years ago, you cannot change your will today. The despots even change the CONSTITUTION for dubious reasons.
There was a 1993 agreement with the woman and therefore there can never be a 2004 agreement with the woman? Not only was there an offer, there was consideration to confirm that there was an agreement in the eyes of the law.
... and they complain I call them delusional people, and idiots.
To me there was a new exchange of consideration, the lady giving up the stall and the payment of $18,000 for her to give up that right.
Moreover one still has to contend with the undue influence when the old lady signed the contract, which might make the original contract voidable.
Then there is the UK Landlord and Tenant Act, which specifically provides for compensation for Landlord taking possession of their property. So was the contract under the ambit of Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA), because the Landlord specifically provided for an exemption clause.
e.g. If an old lady buys a brand new TV with no discount, the terms in the sales invoice states that the retailer is not responsible for the condition of the TV and no compensation will be made for damaged TV. The old lady receives the TV and it was damaged, not in working condition.
Does this mean that you can't take legal actions to recover your TV? (UCTA)
The old lady with language difficulties might not even understand the contract, which calls into question if "undue influence" was present in the contract.
Then you have the the retailer offering to pay you back $2,000 for the TV, you accepted the deal.
Then the retailer comes back to tell you that in the original contract, no compensation is provided for. Then the retailer wants to recover the money paid whilst you have already lost possession of the TV.
There was a new contract, exchange of TV for the money returned to the consumer. -
Originally posted by lagrangian1125:
... with regards to any "Contractual Agreements" and or Clauses therein implied; as a comparison, will not a Hospital or a Surgeon verbally notify or further REMIND a patient who is about to undergo a major operation which may or may not, see the patient back alive?
Hi all, lets put aside sympathy and "the govt always at fault" mentality and analyze this case proper.
The newspaper states
"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."
"At her daughter's urging, Mdm Lee surrendered her stall in October 2003, in return for $18,000 in compensation from the Housing and Development Board (HDB)."
"It cited a clause in an agreement Mdm Lee had signed in 1993 that said she would not be entitled to any compensation for the stall."
It is pretty obvious that the old lady did not read her agreement. If in doubt, she can always seek legal advice.
However, if one were to think logically, when one is asked to give up his/her stall, the 1st thing that come to mind should be compensation!
So, how could she miss out such an important clause??! Putting aside the doubts on the honesty of the old lady and her daughter, if they fail to notice the clause, then, in the eyes of the law, they failed to comply to the contract.
Of course, the HDM is screwed up to allow such a mistake to occur. But the old lady noticing that an extra 18k was suddenly deposited in her bank ,she should find something amiss.
[b]Why? In the agreement, since the clause no compensation for the stall was in, there should not be a clause stating an 18K will be reimburse into her bank, so she should not even expect any money.
With an extra 18k in bank, and a monthly letter from the bank, it is obvious that the HDB has accidentally added that money.
It is the duty of everyone to return this kind of money. It is PUBLIC MONEY.
I have my own reservation about the old lady and daughter honesty but that is another matter.
The HBD has to send letter like "The letter, dated Monday, also stated that payment had to be made within 21 days, "failing which we have instructions to commence legal action without further reference"." TO PREVENT PPL IGNORING THEIR REQUEST.
Imagine if the letter is like "no legal action will be taken but pls kindly return us our money. Do u think anyone will return the money after reading this kind of letter??
The paper also states "She can contact us for assistance if she has difficulties in returning the money, " it added." ... so things can be negotiated.
Hence, it is irrelevant for ppl here to argue that the HDB is uncompromising.
I do agree that the mistake HDB made is silly, and I feel the person who make this mistake must be punish by HDB.
However, dragging the whole govt in seems a little too absurd since they do not make the mistake themselves.
Afterall, which employer dare say the employee they employ will never make any mistake.
[/b]
... Question is; DID the HDB re-iterate to her, that she IS NOT illegible or entitled to the said compensation sum of S$18,000.00? As a large government organization, are they automatically absolved from any responsibilities and or liabilities in dispensing their Terms & Clauses? -
like the old lady got a degree to sell clothes?
-
... they tell her,Originally posted by Lin Yu:like the old lady got a degree to sell clothes?
"Let's make an agreement, you give up your stall (you don't have to give up) but if you give up your stall, we give you $18000/- OK? Agreed?"
... and she is supposed to say
"Are you government officials trying to cheat me into giving up the stall knowing full well you cannot offer me compensation, issit?
You are too stupid to know you cannot make me the offer and you cannot enter into this new agreement with me, yet you make me the offer!
You want me to give up the stall and 4 years later take back my $18K and say this new offer and this new agreement was a mistake right?"
Well they made her an offer and entered into an agreement signed sealed and the $18K delivered and 4 years later, they say 'mistake, mistake!'
Mistake their ass. They honor their agreement or else might as well not enter into any contract. -
Originally posted by Lin Yu:like the old lady got a degree to sell clothes?
-
If the daughter urged the old lady to give up her stall for $18k, it meant there was already a discussion with some HDB personnal that she will get compensation. It can't be that she already got the $18k in advance before she signed the contract.Originally posted by lagrangian1125:Hi all, lets put aside sympathy and "the govt always at fault" mentality and analyze this case proper.
The newspaper states
"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."
"At her daughter's urging, Mdm Lee surrendered her stall in October 2003, in return for $18,000 in compensation from the Housing and Development Board (HDB)."
"It cited a clause in an agreement Mdm Lee had signed in 1993 that said she would not be entitled to any compensation for the stall."
It is pretty obvious that the old lady did not read her agreement. If in doubt, she can always seek legal advice.
However, if one were to think logically, when one is asked to give up his/her stall, the 1st thing that come to mind should be compensation!
So, how could she miss out such an important clause??! Putting aside the doubts on the honesty of the old lady and her daughter, if they fail to notice the clause, then, in the eyes of the law, they failed to comply to the contract.
Of course, the HDM is screwed up to allow such a mistake to occur. But the old lady noticing that an extra 18k was suddenly deposited in her bank ,she should find something amiss.
She was led to believe that she will get it, so how can she not expect an $18k in her bank?
You can't say that if she failed to notice the clause in the contract then it's entirely her fault. The verbal discussion before that is also legally binding and HDB certainly have to take up part of the responsibility if they indeed told her she will get $18k. -
Originally posted by UandMe:
Don't waste your time with idiots. They do not even know that "verbal discussion before that is also legally binding" and yet they want to argue like they are a pro and in the process make fools of themselves.
If the daughter urged the old lady to give up her stall for $18k, it meant there was already a discussion with some HDB personnal that she will get compensation. It can't be that she already got the $18k in advance before she signed the contract.
She was led to believe that she [b]will get it, so how can she not expect an $18k in her bank?
You can't say that if she failed to notice the clause in the contract then it's entirely her fault. The verbal discussion before that is also legally binding and HDB certainly have to take up part of the responsibility if they indeed told her she will get $18k.
[/b] -
She was under the impression that she would get 18k if she surrendered her stall. And sadly, HDB made no attempt or effort to correct her impression. In fact, they enforced her impression by giving her the 18k.Originally posted by deathbait:read the article in full again
the woman was not supposed to get the money. No deal is being reneged here.
Well, you have just proved my point on how inefficient the HDB is. It appears that HDB didnt read their contract too. If they did, they would have spotted the same clause that said the woman wasnt entitled to any compensation and would have promptly not paid out the 18k in the first place.
Although its the duty of both parties to read the contract, the woman who is a citizen trusted the HDB completly in this matter that she sign the contract without reading carefully into it. The woman only knows that she will get 18k f she gives up her stall.
Its clearly HDB's fault, and now HDB realising their mistake, albeit too late, attempt to renege on the deal by demanding money back and trying to cite legal clause to convince the woman that she is at fault. -
I must learn patience from you people. I just cannot suffer fools gladly, and you have the patience to slowly explain the facts to the fools that don't know but act smart and argue endlessly, continually making a bigger and bigger fool of themselves.Originally posted by shade343:She was under the impression that she would get 18k if she surrendered her stall. And sadly, HDB made no attempt or effort to correct her impression. In fact, they enforced her impression by giving her the 18k.
Well, you have just proved my point on how inefficient the HDB is. It appears that HDB didnt read their contract too. If they did, they would have spotted the same clause that said the woman wasnt entitled to any compensation and would have promptly not paid out the 18k in the first place.
Although its the duty of both parties to read the contract, the woman who is a citizen trusted the HDB completly in this matter that she sign the contract without reading carefully into it. The woman only knows that she will get 18k f she gives up her stall.
Its clearly HDB's fault, and now HDB realising their mistake, albeit too late, attempt to renege on the deal by demanding money back and trying to cite legal clause to convince the woman that she is at fault.
Once the first person explained to them, they should have realized their errors but apparently they are too stupid to know when they are wrong. -
How old are u then???Originally posted by maurizio13:Too many xiao didi (little boys) in here, boys who should be spending more of their time in the Homework Forum rather than Speaker's Corner.
Fancy arguing with a little boy about what is right.
I am not schooling anymore though I frequently have to go to a particular university for some reason. -
huh? to clean the toilets there?Originally posted by lagrangian1125:How old are u then???
I am not schooling anymore though I frequently have to go to a particular university for some reason. -
Originally posted by UandMe:
No. U see, if they are entitled to the 18K they should have notice it in the agreement and the clause of "no compensation" should not even exist. If it does, then there is a contradictory and the contract in the eye of business law is flawed.
If the daughter urged the old lady to give up her stall for $18k, it meant there was already a discussion with some HDB personnal that she will get compensation. It can't be that she already got the $18k in advance before she signed the contract.
She was led to believe that she [b]will get it, so how can she not expect an $18k in her bank?
You can't say that if she failed to notice the clause in the contract then it's entirely her fault. The verbal discussion before that is also legally binding and HDB certainly have to take up part of the responsibility if they indeed told her she will get $18k.
[/b]
U should see this contradiction if it is so.
U cannot say that there could be some HDB personnel discussing 18K will be given as compensation as an excuse NOT TO READ THE CONTRACT.
Also, if there are some HDB personnel saying that, why is she the ONLY ONE AMONG ALL THE OTHER STALL OWNERS TO GET THIS MISCOMMUNICATION??
She even said that she is on very good term with her fellow stall owners friends and she would most probably have speak with them.
U get what I mean??? -
No the case is different here. This act is only reasonable for faulty goods sold with an intention to cheat money.Originally posted by maurizio13:Can't blame them, we were little boys once too and we know of our own shortcomings then. Suggest you ignore them, no point arguing with little boys.
To me there was a new exchange of consideration, the lady giving up the stall and the payment of $18,000 for her to give up that right.
Moreover one still has to contend with the undue influence when the old lady signed the contract, which might make the original contract voidable.
Then there is the UK Landlord and Tenant Act, which specifically provides for compensation for Landlord taking possession of their property. So was the contract under the ambit of Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA), because the Landlord specifically provided for an exemption clause.
e.g. If an old lady buys a brand new TV with no discount, the terms in the sales invoice states that the retailer is not responsible for the condition of the TV and no compensation will be made for damaged TV. The old lady receives the TV and it was damaged, not in working condition.
Does this mean that you can't take legal actions to recover your TV? (UCTA)
In our case, the contract drawn by HDB did state clearly no compensation made. The 18 K re-imburse was a mistake made by HDB though.
If u ever check the 1st agreement anyone sign in order to own a stall, there is a clause stating something like the HDB reserve right to collect the stalls back without any form of compensation.
So it is different from ur unfair contract term act.
The old lady is not alone! Her daughters and sons could have double check.Originally posted by maurizio13:The old lady with language difficulties might not even understand the contract, which calls into question if "undue influence" was present in the contract.
Then you have the the retailer offering to pay you back $2,000 for the TV, you accepted the deal.
Then the retailer comes back to tell you that in the original contract, no compensation is provided for. Then the retailer wants to recover the money paid whilst you have already lost possession of the TV.
There was a new contract, exchange of TV for the money returned to the consumer.
Also, if in doubts, she can always seeks legal advice through proper channel. So, there should not be any problem here. -
U obviously miss my point. The HDB did not realize the 18K was reimburse into her account before hand. They made a mistake in the process. If they have realize this, would the 18K even been sent to the old lady???Originally posted by HyperFocal:... with regards to any "Contractual Agreements" and or Clauses therein implied; as a comparison, will not a Hospital or a Surgeon verbally notify or further REMIND a patient who is about to undergo a major operation which may or may not, see the patient back alive?
... Question is; DID the HDB re-iterate to her, that she IS NOT illegible or entitled to the said compensation sum of S$18,000.00? As a large government organization, are they automatically absolved from any responsibilities and or liabilities in dispensing their Terms & Clauses?
So, if they made a mistake without realizing it, how could they have then re-iterate to her??? -
Unfortunately and much to ur disappointment....nope.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:huh? to clean the toilets there?
U could say I am boasting or whatever. The job I have gave me 5 figure digit salary per month.
Sad to say, I dont feel even a pinch in ur intended sarcasm. -
Read the paper, they did not state this nor imply this statement at all.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... they tell her,
"Let's make an agreement, you give up your stall (you don't have to give up) but if you give up your stall, we give you $18000/- OK? Agreed?"
This is ur own interpretation! -
Going to work now.....
-
... basically, SOMEONE has to push the "Compensation Button" in their organization... so perhaps, this SOMEONE in our First Class system wasn't well briefed or versed in HDB's inner workings?Originally posted by lagrangian1125:U obviously miss my point. The HDB did not realize the 18K was reimburse into her account before hand. They made a mistake in the process. If they have realize this, would the 18K even been sent to the old lady???
So, if they made a mistake without realizing it, how could they have then re-iterate to her???
... point is, originator of mistake IS from HDB... -
What a load of gibberish from a university toilet cleaner...Originally posted by lagrangian1125:No. U see, if they are entitled to the 18K they should have notice it in the agreement and the clause of "no compensation" should not even exist. If it does, then there is a contradictory and the contract in the eye of business law is flawed.
U should see this contradiction if it is so.
U cannot say that there could be some HDB personnel discussing 18K will be given as compensation as an excuse NOT TO READ THE CONTRACT.
Also, if there are some HDB personnel saying that, why is she the ONLY ONE AMONG ALL THE OTHER STALL OWNERS TO GET THIS MISCOMMUNICATION??
She even said that she is on very good term with her fellow stall owners friends and she would most probably have speak with them.
U get what I mean???
If it does, then there is a contradictory and the contract in the eye of business law is flawed.
..and whose fault was it that it was flawed????!!!!
If they did not issued her a flawed contract, she would not have given up the stall... take your pick, they were either trying to cheat her by issuing her a flawed contract which they enforced with the payment or they should just compensate the very old lady for making a mistake and cause her to give up her stall when she did not need to.