Legal Issue on Contract Law in Malaysia - Good for us to know

[birdy]

I received the following email. Can anyone verified if this is true? Any legal practitioner or lawyer here? :confused: :confused:


This is something I like to share with you from one of my seminar recently. If you find this informative, pls circulate. It was conducted by A/P Catherine Tay on Legal issues in E-commerce.

Notice that most of the time, the receipt / invoice you received from the merchant carries this exclusion clause or similarly worded statement: "Goods sold are not returnable" or "No refund once sold".

The thing that I have learnt from her is that: "As long as your good is purchased for home use and not for business (i.e. to be resold), the above exclusion clause is VOID.

That means, as long as the good is defective, regardless of what is worded, you CAN get back all your money spent. You do not have to accept a repair on the good or an exchange. You CAN ask for a refund. AND you are LEGALLY right and entitled to! What a revelation!!

And most of the times the merchant will refuse to return you your money.

Her advice? >From her own experience ( and no less than 7 and all successful!), she will threaten the merchant with four words: "SEE YOU IN COURT!"

The court here refers to the Small Claims Tribunal Court .

However, you don't have to tell them what court! All you have to pay is RM10 admin fee and the loser (the merchant) will have to refund you the money PLUS the admin fee!

She shared this with us because she felt that even educated people are cowed by such unfair wordings (which include her jaded friends who are not lawyers).

Pls try not to let the merchant fleece you the next time you have a defective good.

I know where to file this. At the 16th floor of Putra Place (The Mall opposite Putra World Trade Centre) . The form cost RM5.00. The Tribunal will settle within 2 months period.

Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna Malaysia ,
Tingkat 16, Putra Place ,
100, Jalan Putra ,
50622 KUALA LUMPUR
Tel: 03 - 40492300 / 40424181 Fax: 03 - 40424259

[VeeJay]

We had discussed similar topic before, if you have the time, do a search...
one similar topic is here...
http://www.usj.com.my/bulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=12520

The answer is yes, even the receipt is printer for return or refund, but the good is defective, consumer has the right to return the goods.

[VeeJay]

Here is another thread for your readings...
http://www.usj.com.my/bulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=8546

[birdy]

I know this has nothing to do with Ikea, but just wanted to share a current verdict at tribunal court....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Consumer Claims Tribunal today brought hope to motorists who lose their vehicles or belongings at paid parking lots.

It ruled that disclaimers of "Vehicles are parked at your own risk" were not absolute.

In awarding RM25,200 to a massage therapist and his wife who lost their car in a parking lot, tribunal president Hussain Mohamed Dewa said: "There is an implied guarantee of reasonable care and skill that there is security for cars parked there. An exclusion clause, therefore, is not absolute."

Low Lok Ann, 44, and his wife Tai Kim Siew, 43, told the tribunal they had parked their Toyota Unser 1.8 at the IOI Mall parking lot in Puchong, run by Commercial Wings Sdn Bhd, at 2.19pm on Nov 7, 2003.

They said they had gone to the mall to shop. Two hours later, they found their van missing.

Low’s tools, including his portable table and massage chair, were in the vehicle.

When the management claimed he had parked at his own risk and it was not liable for the loss, Low took the matter to the tribunal.

He claimed service providers had to provide a reasonable standard of care to consumers and could not rely on exemption clauses to avoid liability.

Commercial Wings Sdn Bhd, represented by its lawyer Ong Lay Pooi, claimed there was a clear disclaimer notice at the parking lot entrance as well as on the parking ticket which said cars were parked at the owner’s risk.

This, said Ong, meant the claimant agreed to the terms and conditions to parking there and was bound by them.

She also said they were only required to provide a reasonable standard of care and skill, which had been done.

When Ong said the tribunal should not take into account negligence, Hussain asked: "How then were the vehicle and items lost?"

When Ong said the value of the car had been compensated by the insurance company, Hussain countered that the items in the vehicle were still missing due to the theft.

Hussein awarded the maximum amount that can be claimed at the consumer tribunal: RM25,000.

In addition, he ordered the management company to pay the maximum of RM200 in costs to Low.

Decisions of the tribunal are final but those unhappy with a decision can file an application in the High Court for judicial review.

When contacted, two practising lawyers agreed with Hussain’s decision.

Lim Cze Mien said the question was what constituted a "reasonable" standard of care.

"I should think it should mean that you should find your car where you parked it and not find that it has disappeared," she said.

Geetha Supramaniam said exclusion clauses should depend on the circumstances of the case.

"Even at apartment buildings, it says park at your own risk. Does that mean I’m paying my management fees for them to exclude liability?

"If you’re only allowing me to park there, then why do you have security cameras?"

---NST
So, assuming the car is still there but was damaged by knocking from some other vehicles, etc... can we make claims against them?

As for the car missing issue...I recall from talking to one of the insurance company group GM before, in order to claim, u need to produce the parking ticket. If you lost your parking ticket with the car, then there is no claim allowed as this proof your negligence. Any comment on this?

[Teeque]

So, assuming the car is still there but was damaged by knocking from some other vehicles, etc... can we make claims against them?
Provided that you can show proof, you can make claims against the vehicle that knock yours, thru your insurers. I think the parking operators can only assist in the claims by the insurers ie. cctv evidence, witness etc.


As for the car missing issue...I recall from talking to one of the insurance company group GM before, in order to claim, u need to produce the parking ticket. If you lost your parking ticket with the car, then there is no claim allowed as this proof your negligence. Any comment on this?
No claim frm the insurers, yes. I would think it would be the same with the parking operators as you need to show prrof of your parking there. Otherwise, any Tom, Nick and Mary can claim lost vehicles everytime at the parking lot, no? :p