Friday, November 13, 2009

Specific unfair practices

ECOND SCHEDULE

Section 4(d)
SPECIFIC UNFAIR PRACTICES

1. Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, ingredients, components, qualities, uses or benefits that they do not have.
2. Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, model, origin or method of manufacture if they are not.
3. Representing that goods are new or unused if they are not or if they have deteriorated or been altered, reconditioned or reclaimed.
4. Representing that goods have been used to an extent different from the fact or that they have a particular history or use if the supplier knows it is not so.
5. Representing that goods or services are available or are available for a particular reason, for a particular price, in particular quantities or at a particular time if the supplier knows or can reasonably be expected to know it is not so, unless the representation clearly states any limitation.
6. Representing that a service, part, repair or replacement is needed or desirable if that is not so, or that a service has been provided, a part has been installed, a repair has been made or a replacement has been provided, if that is not so.
7. Representing that a price benefit or advantage exists respecting goods or services where the price benefit or advantage does not exist.
8. Charging a price for goods or services that is substantially higher than an estimate provided to the consumer, except where the consumer has expressly agreed to the higher price in advance.
9. Representing that a transaction involving goods or services involves or does not involve rights, remedies or obligations where that representation is deceptive or misleading.
10. Representing that a person has or does not have the authority to negotiate the final terms of an agreement involving goods or services if the representation is different from the fact.
11. Taking advantage of a consumer by including in an agreement terms or conditions that are harsh, oppressive or excessively one-sided so as to be unconscionable.
12. Taking advantage of a consumer by exerting undue pressure or undue influence on the consumer to enter into a transaction involving goods or services.
13. Representing in relation to a voucher that another supplier will provide goods or services at a discounted or reduced price if the supplier making the representation knows or ought to know that the other supplier will not do so.
14. Making a representation that appears in an objective form such as an editorial, documentary or scientific report when the representation is primarily made to sell goods or services, unless the representation states that it is an advertisement or a promotion.
15. Representing that a particular person has offered or agreed to acquire goods or services whether or not at a stated price if he has not.
16. Representing the availability of facilities for repair of goods or of spare parts for goods if that is not the case.
17. Offering gifts, prizes or other free items in connection with the supply of goods or services if the supplier knows or ought to know that the items will not be provided or provided as offered.
18. Representing that goods or services are available at a discounted price for a stated period of time if the supplier knows or ought to know that the goods or services will continue to be so available for a substantially longer period.
19. Representing that goods or services are available at a discounted price for a particular reason that is different from the fact.
20. Using small print to conceal a material fact from the consumer or to mislead a consumer as to a material fact, in connection with the supply of goods or services.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

REX comments

Recently there are quite a few advertisements which show a person dressed as a Doctor in white uniform, recommending certain products. The advertisements appear so frequently you are sick of it. This contravenes Item 1 of your list of 20 already.

I don't understand how the Advertising standards body in Singapore can allow such misrepresentation of the medical practice.

In Singapore many Administrators and Regulatory bodies in Singapore are happily collecting monthly salaries doing nothing visible.

REX

Anonymous said...

Another evidence of unfair practice by insurance agents.
Just released report by LIA shows only $44K sum assured was sold and $47K for claim.
1.The $44k sold shows that the agents were not concerned about ADEQUATE PROTECTION for their clients and they didn't put the clients' interest first. Obvious products sold were wholelife or endowment which once again prove that they are useless products. And the fact they were sold shows how despicable the insurance agents were and they had conflict of interest.
2.The low claim of $47K should give lawyers opportunity to help these victims of agents to sue for the inadequacy and inappropriate recommendation .Surely the $47K cannot do very much if the deceased left a family of young children.Perhaps enough to pay for his own burial expenses.
I refute the president of LIA for attributing the low sum assured sold to consumers. He was not stating the truth. He should boldly and fearlessly say the low coverage was due to conflict of interest of insurance agents and product pushing and not otherwise.
This is misrepresenting the truth and is pointing the finger at consumers for not seeing the need for adequate protection.
If the president is honest he should do the right thing, ie.to say that insurance agent are not doing the right thing and they are the cause of consumers not having enough coverage.
This is indeed a dishonest world. They say and do things in their own interest first and worse lie about it.

crazy said...

What is adequate protection?
What is enough coverage?

Its all relative.

the buyer wants the best return at the lowest price,
the seller wants the highest price with the best returns.

What else is there? charity? ethics?

Blog Archive