Huh?
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?
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 expectation
*
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 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.
