Consumer Protection
Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp [2006] SGHC 82
If a gladiator, having arrived at the coliseum with just a sword, and finding his opponent more heavily armed, asks for leave to increase his with a shield, or an extra blade, should his request be allowed? Should he be told that he was a professional, and ought therefore, stand by his choice of weapons; and if his predicament was of his own making, that is, in forgetfulness, ought he be assisted? To arm him better might have made it a more even fight, but would that have been fair to the other warrior who had come prepared? On the other hand, should we be so absorbed in the examination of the gladiators’ weapons that we forget the fight, or misdirect ourselves as to the issue - fairly armed or fairly fought? That one follows the other is already an indication what the answer ought to be.
When the law is likened to a spider’s web, trapping small prey while larger ones break right through it, it is procedural laws, and not the substantive ones, that are likely to fit the bill.
Prof Lon Fuller once remarked, “The litigant cannot join issue with his opponent in a vacuum.”
I found this particularly interesting legal issue here on whether legal action can be commenced against traders with unethical business practices. It made me think about consumer protection and the limits of consumer protection. I was never particularly interested in the law of contract, but it is a vital part of law.
Consumer Protection in Singapore: We should be looking at:
(1) The Unfair Contract Terms Act - Cap 396, 1994; and the
(2) Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act.
In the situation described here, as there is no contract (broadly speaking), you'd have to go straight for the Consumer Protection Act. Note that the provisions do not generally apply to contracts of employment.
If a gladiator, having arrived at the coliseum with just a sword, and finding his opponent more heavily armed, asks for leave to increase his with a shield, or an extra blade, should his request be allowed? Should he be told that he was a professional, and ought therefore, stand by his choice of weapons; and if his predicament was of his own making, that is, in forgetfulness, ought he be assisted? To arm him better might have made it a more even fight, but would that have been fair to the other warrior who had come prepared? On the other hand, should we be so absorbed in the examination of the gladiators’ weapons that we forget the fight, or misdirect ourselves as to the issue - fairly armed or fairly fought? That one follows the other is already an indication what the answer ought to be.
When the law is likened to a spider’s web, trapping small prey while larger ones break right through it, it is procedural laws, and not the substantive ones, that are likely to fit the bill.
Prof Lon Fuller once remarked, “The litigant cannot join issue with his opponent in a vacuum.”
I found this particularly interesting legal issue here on whether legal action can be commenced against traders with unethical business practices. It made me think about consumer protection and the limits of consumer protection. I was never particularly interested in the law of contract, but it is a vital part of law.
Consumer Protection in Singapore: We should be looking at:
(1) The Unfair Contract Terms Act - Cap 396, 1994; and the
(2) Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act.
In the situation described here, as there is no contract (broadly speaking), you'd have to go straight for the Consumer Protection Act. Note that the provisions do not generally apply to contracts of employment.