HDB's mistake but she's made to pay - 4 years later
-
we are so proud of you... please clean the toilets properly ok?Originally posted by lagrangian1125:Going to work now..... -
Huh?Originally posted by lagrangian1125:No the case is different here. This act is only reasonable for faulty goods sold with an intention to cheat money.
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.
Also, if in doubts, she can always seeks legal advice through proper channel. So, there should not be any problem here.
Can you cite which section of the Act you mention that states the Unfair Contract Terms Act is only for "faulty goods sold with an intention to cheat money"?
Unfair Contract Terms Act
Varieties of exemption clause.
13. —(1) To the extent that this Part prevents the exclusion or restriction of any liability it also prevents —
(a) making the liability or its enforcement subject to restrictive or onerous conditions;
(b) excluding or restricting any right or remedy in respect of the liability, or subjecting a person to any prejudice in consequence of his pursuing any such right or remedy;
(c) excluding or restricting rules of evidence or procedure,
and (to that extent) sections 2 and 5 to 7 also prevent excluding or restricting liability by reference to terms and notices which exclude or restrict the relevant obligation or duty.
(2) But an agreement in writing to submit present or future differences to arbitration is not to be treated under this Part as excluding or restricting any liability.
Already stated very cleary, the liability is consistent with the practices in the Landlord and Tenant Act UK, where a Landlord must compensate the Tenant if he wishes not to renew the tenancy under certain conditions.
If the contract was made specifically to exclude liabilities such as compensation from Landlord to Tenant for the termination of lease (when compensation is required by Landlord and Tenant Act UK), it doesn't absolve the Landlord from such a liability by merely stating it in the contract. Like the example for the TV I gave earlier.
Do you understand the meaning of "undue influence" in the Law of Contracts?
Maybe you can explain to me what is "undue influence" under Contract Law?
Do you understand the exchange of new consideration for the new contract?
Maybe you can consult a lawyer friend to refute all the views by the other lawyers.
Moreover in tamago's 2nd post:
Leong Sze Hian, who first heard of Mdm Lee's predicament and brought her case to the attention of the local media, says:
After sending my letter to the newspapers' forum pages, I spoke to 4 lawyers, who were of the opinion that the HDB may be estopped from claiming the return of the $18,000, because she gave up her hawker stall and livelihood as a hawker by accepting HDB's offer of $18,000.
Wikipedia:-
Estoppel is a legal doctrine recognised both at common law and in equity in various forms. It is meant to complement the requirement of consideration in contract law. In general it protects a party who would suffer detriment if:
* The defendant has done or said something to induce an expectation
* The plaintiff relied (reasonably) on the expectationÂ…
* Â…and would suffer detriment if that expectation were false.
In English law, the concept of legitimate expectation in the realm of administrative law and judicial review is estoppel's counterpart in public law, although subtle but important differences exist.
Perhaps the obstacle for Mdm Lee in bringing her case to the courts would be her signing of a Letter of Undertaking when she first took ownership of her stall in 1993. In the undertaking, she agreed that she will not seek any compensation in the event of any upgrading of her stall.
This, however, throws up the question of whether it was fair for the HDB to have hawkers sign such a document in the first place.
Perhaps those who are well-versed in the law can provide clarification.
Maybe you are well verse in the use of calculus for optimization with Lagrange Multipliers, but as can be seen from here Law isn't your forte. -
That is the right response to his gibberish...Originally posted by maurizio13:huh?. -
1st, I dont mind to be a toilet cleaner if I am paid 5 digit salary. Ingrates like u do not appreciate the daily routine cleaner has to carry out.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:What a load of gibberish from a university toilet cleaner...
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.
2ndly, as usual, u totally misread my point.
Now, the qns I am going to ask is simple.
Is a contract that has a clause "no compensation is to be made" and yet have a clause "18K will be given as compensation" contradictory??
Ans my qns.
My reply to this will be of course it is contradictory. If this contradiction were to exist, the old lady will be sure to win the case.
Apparently, the 18k as compensation must not be found in the contract!
Do u get it??? -
This is Tammy thread, someone I have respect for, so I shan't quarrel over this stupid post with ur idiotic nonsense.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:we are so proud of you... please clean the toilets properly ok?
Do note that I am very courteous to u here because it is someone else thread.
Go ahead and say whatever rubbish u want.
So long as ur post is irrelevant, I cant even be bothered to answer. -
I must admit I am not very good with law, but all that other definitions asides, we just analyze from the newspaper, dont u agree that something very fishy is going on.Originally posted by maurizio13:Maybe you can consult a lawyer friend to refute all the views by the other lawyers.
Maybe you are well verse in the use of calculus for optimization with Lagrange Multipliers, but as can be seen from here Law isn't your forte.
How can a contract with a clause of " no compensation be made" have 18 K paid to the old lady?
Assume the old lady and daughter sign the contract with the 1st clause saying 18 K will be paid, and that is why they sign it, then the 2nd clause contradict the 1st clause and thus making the contract invalid.
If the contract is invalid, then the old lady and daughter has ALL RIGHT not to pay at all.
However, the news state that they understand that the payout is a mistake.
Hence, it is logical to deduce that the clause"18K will be given" DO NOT EXIST!
So, what is so wrong here about HDB asking back the money?
If u dont mind, explain to me the flaws of my reasoning. -
And btw Lagrange wasnt just famous for his lagrange multilpier. He contributed alot in lagrangian mechanics that hugely simplify tough qns in mechanics.Originally posted by maurizio13:Maybe you can consult a lawyer friend to refute all the views by the other lawyers.
Maybe you are well verse in the use of calculus for optimization with Lagrange Multipliers, but as can be seen from here Law isn't your forte.
This is just a side note. -
deleted.
-
U see, my point is not about our 1st class ministers or what. I dont really think much of them anyway.Originally posted by HyperFocal:... 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?
... point is, originator of mistake IS from HDB...
My point is, in the article , if u have truly read it, u should understand that mistakes are made from both side.
Yes, the one in HDB who made the mistake has to be punished, but they also have to retrieve back the money because it is public money.
Forget all about HOW THE HDB GONNA DO WITH THE MONEY.
I am only interested why is it so wrong for the HDB to retrieve the money.
BTW, do u understand my previous posts about the contract that the old lady sign? -
Edit upon request.
-
sure thing.... but all his current posts are locked.Originally posted by lagrangian1125:Try to post less of this in Tammy thread. But do blast all this kind of nonsense if it is PK YAP post. Because his is crap anyway. -
I shall repeat my argument again.
Assume that the old lady and her daughter sign the contract because it is clearly stated 18K will be paid to them,
then the clause "no compensation made" is invalid.
Suppose both clause exist, then the contract is contradictory and no way can HDB claim back the money.
Hence, the 1st clause that says "18K will be paid" MUST NOT HAVE EXIST, Since HDB is using the 2nd clause to go against the old lady.
So, can anyone point out what is so wrong about HDB asking back the money? -
Originally posted by lagrangian1125:I must admit I am not very good with law, but all that other definitions asides, we just analyze from the newspaper, dont u agree that something very fishy is going on.
How can a contract with a clause of " no compensation be made" have 18 K paid to the old lady?
The $18,000 was fresh consideration for the consideration that the old lady give up the stall. It's a new contract, we are no longer hinging on the old contract.
The mistake of the "no compensation be made" is entirely that of HDB. However, the clause there could go against the Unfair Contract Term Act, where large coporations with their standard contracts could limit their liabilities to the contract. As under the Landlord and Tenant Act UK, unless certain conditions are met, the Landlord will be required to make compensation to the tenant, more so if the Landlord is the government.
Assume the old lady and daughter sign the contract with the 1st clause saying 18 K will be paid, and that is why they sign it, then the 2nd clause contradict the 1st clause and thus making the contract invalid.
The payment of the $18,000 and the clause where you say the compensation is non payable are 2 different contracts, separate and distinct.
Please read tamago's 2nd post in the first page of thread:
<<<<"If you had a mother who's been working all her life, would you still want her to work at such an advanced age?", Ms Gina Lau asked when explaining why she had advised her mother to give up the stall at the Hougang Ave 1 hawker centre in 2003.
In return for giving up her business, Mdm Lee was given $18,000 by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) under its Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme.
(The Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme (HUP) was launched in Feb 2001 at an estimated cost of $420m to upgrade markets/hawker centres over a period of 10 years. - NEA)>>>>
In return of giving up her business (consideration), Mdm Lee was given $18,000 (consideration) by HDB. It didn't say, because of the first contract, the HDB paid Mdm Lee a compensation. It's an entirely new contract.
If the contract is invalid, then the old lady and daughter has ALL RIGHT not to pay at all.
However, the news state that they understand that the payout is a mistake.
HDB has very little legal basis to ask for the return of the money, they are just playing hardball, using all forms of legal implications to coerce the old lady into submission.
Hence, it is logical to deduce that the clause"18K will be given" DO NOT EXIST!
Read above.
So, what is so wrong here about HDB asking back the money?
If u dont mind, explain to me the flaws of my reasoning.
Hope you can understand. -
Of course, just in case for those who feel that I am siding HDB all the time.
I do understand that BOTH parties are responsible for this issue.
However, my concern is what is so wrong about HDB asking back the money which is indeed public money.
All other matters be cast aside 1st. Can anyone tell me why the HDB cannot take back the money?? -
Well, pardon me, for my argument is based solely on the newspaper.Originally posted by maurizio13:
The part Tammy posted states ""If you had a mother who's been working all her life, would you still want her to work at such an advanced age?", Ms Gina Lau asked when explaining why she had advised her mother to give up the stall at the Hougang Ave 1 hawker centre in 2003.
In return for giving up her business, Mdm Lee was given $18,000 by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) under its Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme.
(The Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme (HUP) was launched in Feb 2001 at an estimated cost of $420m to upgrade markets/hawker centres over a period of 10 years. - NEA)"
It wasnt clearly stated that there is a 2nd contract AT THE SAME TIME.
If it is, then I must admit that ur argument is more sound.
Again, pardon my ignorance in matter of laws, please do highlight the part that says explicitly a 2nd contract is signed.
Do answer my question. I am sincere in learning from u because u speak with much sense and precision and I thank u for answering my previous posts.
I am very much open to opinions of others much have the training in pursing of science have taught me. -
Hi maurizio13, I have work to do at 2pm. I shall look forward to learn from your reply when I return this evening. Thanks.
-
Yes I am sure you are paid 5 digits in rupiah for your toilet cleaning work.Originally posted by lagrangian1125:1st, I dont mind to be a toilet cleaner if I am paid 5 digit salary. Ingrates like u do not appreciate the daily routine cleaner has to carry out.
2ndly, as usual, u totally misread my point.
Now, the qns I am going to ask is simple.
Is a contract that has a clause "no compensation is to be made" and yet have a clause "18K will be given as compensation" contradictory??
Ans my qns.
My reply to this will be of course it is contradictory. If this contradiction were to exist, the old lady will be sure to win the case.
Apparently, the 18k as compensation must not be found in the contract!
Do u get it???
Which contract are you talking about? You are confused over simple things like this and you tell us you are not a toilet cleaner trying to act smart? -
I like how you think everyone are fools, but you're the one who's believing verbal statements of the only person in the case who stands to win by deceit.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap: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. -
I think we're all way off course here
let's get back to the basics and re-examine facts. I have a feeling a couple of you have not even examined the case closely and are totally ruled by your emotions.
1) HDB is taking back the stall no matter what. The choice was either to get a new stall or not apply for one at all
2) daughter advises mother to let go of stall and not re-apply in return for 18k compensation
3) A contract was signed that stated no compensation was to be given.
4) Compensation was given by mistake
5) HDB sends letters when mistake is found
6) For some "unknown reason", woman never gets the letters
7) HDB invokes law and sends letter of demand
Coincidentally, THIS is the letter that somehow makes it's way to the old lady's hands.
Ok. You guys love to talk about misuse of government funds here. HDB made a mistake and gave public money away by accident. Now it wants it back, and you're against it simply because it's an old lady?
Consider the case if it were a strapping young man in his 20s. Add a criminal record. Add an uneducated past. Would you feel the same way? You should, if you're impartial here.
HDB made the mistake first for issuing 18k when it didn't need to. Why is it so unacceptable for them to correct it now? Or is the public sentiment correct : we should all just let mistakes play it's course? -
open your head lah... so that he can clean it properly lah.....Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:we are so proud of you... please clean the toilets properly ok?
-
Well, u did not reply to my question but maurizio13 did. So using ur style, u are using his ass to plaster ur face???Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Yes I am sure you are paid 5 digits in rupiah for your toilet cleaning work.
Which contract are you talking about? You are confused over simple things like this and you tell us you are not a toilet cleaner trying to act smart?
Hello, I have stated so clearly that the source I rely on is solely on the newspaper.
Unlike u when allentyb ask u to answer him, u cant even type a decent post.
Can u even write a 300 words essay???
If u think that my salary is 5 digit rupiah so be it. It just reflects on ur stupidity that me working in a Singapore under a particular university should be paid in foreign currency.
So u are the fool aint you? I doubt u even earn half as much as me per month.
And back on case, have u replied to my question in this post??
NO U DID NOT. And all u did is to flap ur mouth. Mr director of AFET.
U should be grateful that I request chin Eng to remove his post.
So Mr genius of stock market, how much have u earn in ur stock recently???
Or u are too busy calling everyone a despot that u turn IMH crazy??? -
What can I say??? U are sure creative with ur reply.Originally posted by tripwire:open your head lah... so that he can clean it properly lah..... 
-
In return for giving up her business, Mdm Lee was given $18,000 by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) under its Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme.
(The Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme (HUP) was launched in Feb 2001 at an estimated cost of $420m to upgrade markets/hawker centres over a period of 10 years. - NEA)
So can anyone tell me does this means a 2nd contract was sign???
Anyone have more specific details on this case?
Because if there is no 2nd contract sign, then my argument stills hold.
It only state Mdm Lee was given 18k by HDB....was it by mistake? or there exist a 2nd contract stating that HDB will pay 18K to her??? -
And as usual, avoiding my qns like a snake....such a slimy personOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:Yes I am sure you are paid 5 digits in rupiah for your toilet cleaning work.
Which contract are you talking about? You are confused over simple things like this and you tell us you are not a toilet cleaner trying to act smart?
Since maurizio13 can understand my question and answer them logically, and u at the same time dont even understand what contract I am talking about, u are truly the one that is confused.
U simply dont understand and yet u act high and mighty.
I repeat, It is maurizio13 who gave me satisfactory answer. U on the other hand loop around like a eddy current. Inefficient and wasting ppl time. -
Yes, that is what I am tryng to say all along. Esp point 2 and 3. How can the old lady knowing that she will be paid 18 K sign a contract stating no compensation made?Originally posted by deathbait:I think we're all way off course here
let's get back to the basics and re-examine facts. I have a feeling a couple of you have not even examined the case closely and are totally ruled by your emotions.
1) HDB is taking back the stall no matter what. The choice was either to get a new stall or not apply for one at all
2) daughter advises mother to let go of stall and not re-apply in return for 18k compensation
3) A contract was signed that stated no compensation was to be given.
4) Compensation was given by mistake
5) HDB sends letters when mistake is found
6) For some "unknown reason", woman never gets the letters
7) HDB invokes law and sends letter of demand Coincidentally, THIS is the letter that somehow makes it's way to the old lady's hands.
Ok. You guys love to talk about misuse of government funds here. HDB made a mistake and gave public money away by accident. Now it wants it back, and you're against it simply because it's an old lady?
Consider the case if it were a strapping young man in his 20s. Add a criminal record. Add an uneducated past. Would you feel the same way? You should, if you're impartial here.
HDB made the mistake first for issuing 18k when it didn't need to. Why is it so unacceptable for them to correct it now? Or is the public sentiment correct : we should all just let mistakes play it's course?
The only possibility is the 1st and most obvious clause must have"18k will be paid"
But this will contradict the 2nd clause on "no compensation made", making the contract useless for the HDB to use against the old lady.
Now, the HDB is using this contract as a basis against the old lady. Hence, the contract must be logically sound and this must mean "18K will be paid" clause must not have exist .
This means the old lady should know no money was to be given at all.
Another possibility could be as what M13 said, there is a 2nd contract on compensation.
However ,till now, I dont see EXPLICITLY in any relevant articles that there is a 2nd contract.