Beyond the Smokescreen II

[Goh Meng Seng]

Actually if you ask me, I actually think fault lies with WP AHPeTC of not putting up a water tight contract to ATL. The fact that ATL could just use "long poles" to clean the ceiling of another hawker centre is quite telling... AHPeTC didn't even stop them for such unprofessional act.

But since Sylvia has insisted that they have put everything in place in the contract, so be it.

Giving a quotation could be seen as a breach of contract because it is an attempt to sell a product or service. You do not need to have invoiced the client.


Goh Meng Seng

This is only possible if there is a non-compete clause in the contract between AHPE TC and ATL. Even if there is such a clause, there would not be a breach is all the sub contractor did was submit a quote. For a breach to occur, the minimum threshold is for the contract to be be awarded.

As mentioned before, simply producing a quote is not evidence of any intent to cheat. For this to be evidence, we need other supporting documents ( e.g circular announcing the additional charges, invoices to the hawkers). So far, none of this has been produced. There is therefore no evidence supporting the claim that the hawkers were asked to pay extra.

Given the nature of the business, it seems highly unlikely that AHPE TC has a non-compete clause with ATL. Such a non-compete clause would be meaningless in any case given the number of other companies offering similar services to ATL.

With regard to the intent of the quote, Ng Kok Khim to whom the quote is addressed, is now denying that he even asked for a quote in the first place. He claims that ATL sent the quote to his shop "by mistake". If ATL had tried to "double charge" as claimed, then Mr Ng should be saying he requested for the quote because ATL said they had to pay extra. The following is his version of what happened:

 

[cBMouTh]

Actually if you ask me, I actually think fault lies with WP AHPeTC of not putting up a water tight contract to ATL. The fact that ATL could just use "long poles" to clean the ceiling of another hawker centre is quite telling... AHPeTC didn't even stop them for such unprofessional act.

But since Sylvia has insisted that they have put everything in place in the contract, so be it.

Giving a quotation could be seen as a breach of contract because it is an attempt to sell a product or service. You do not need to have invoiced the client.


Goh Meng Seng

GMS cheebye mouth,

I ask you, why tan kin lian get only 5%? And why the hell you lied about already anticipating this?

Your cheebye mouth really full of shit juice :oIo:

 

[aurvandil]

As mentioned before, it is only a breach if there is a non-compete clause. In this case, there is no non-compete clause. WP made this quite clear when they indicated that ATL was free to provide quotes to anyone. If there was a non-compete clause, they would have indicated that ATL cannot provide quotes freely as they are bound by the conditions of the non-compete.

On breach of contracts with non-compete clauses, the yardstick for liquidated damages and other legal remedies is for the contract to be awarded in breach of the non-compete. This is because to enforce the clause and claim damages, you have to go to Court and show the damage you have suffered as a result of the breach. If there is a quote but no award, you obviously have not suffered any damage. You therefore effectively have no case.

Giving a quotation could be seen as a breach of contract because it is an attempt to sell a product or service. You do not need to have invoiced the client.

 

[aurvandil]

His statement appears to contradict the entire basis of NEA's claim that they are standing up for hawkers who were asked to pay extra. He is effectively saying that the quote is a mistake. That being the case, it cannot be regarded as evidence to back up NEA's claims.

I dunno lah. A bit unconvincing.

Maybe mistaken by mailing address but the quotation is specifically addressed to him.

Can telco provide incoming/outgoing call records between lackey NgKK and ATL?

 

[I_Hate_Pappies]

GMS, why are you still having the NSP logo in your Avatar? You are speaking on personal level or in representation of NSP?

 

[cBMouTh]

GMS, why are you still having the NSP logo in your Avatar? You are speaking on personal level or in representation of NSP?

My avatar nice? No NSP logo was used. Cannot be sued for misrepresentation. And by the way GOH MS should use PAP logo since he has been always working for them.

 

[GoMadSeng]

My avatar nice? No NSP logo was used. Cannot be sued for misrepresentation. And by the way GOH MS should use PAP logo since he has been always working for them.

Who call me?

 

[SgParent]

Actually if you ask me, I actually think fault lies with WP AHPeTC of not putting up a water tight contract to ATL. The fact that ATL could just use "long poles" to clean the ceiling of another hawker centre is quite telling... AHPeTC didn't even stop them for such unprofessional act.

But since Sylvia has insisted that they have put everything in place in the contract, so be it.

Agree only if you could show that "long poles" is inferior to "scaffolding"

Just like the White Scums are using state agencies to smear WP, you are hiding behind this forum to smear WP too. Both are smearing

 

[zhihau]

you are hiding behind this forum to smear WP too.

can't really say he's hiding in here, he signs off every post with his name in full.

 

[tanwahp]

Agree only if you could show that "long poles" is inferior to "scaffolding"

GMS has no idea how certain industries operate. He assumes cleaning of unreachable areas must have scaffolds and they can be set up within 1 or 2 days.

He also thinks contractors who quote additional things in a quotation intends it as a form of fraud. This contractor must be mild by evil and stupidity standards. Why put in extra stuff knowing the hawkers will not accept. There are so many other options dishonest contractors are known to go for like mark up high prices, or do-first-bill-later without raising a variation order, or set up a few pseudo companies. Hawkers are vulnerable as they are not property managers who will ask for "3 quotes".

It is not a fact that his own opinions are facts. He has not got the basics right.

 

[tanwahp]

His statement appears to contradict the entire basis of NEA's claim that they are standing up for hawkers who were asked to pay extra. He is effectively saying that the quote is a mistake. That being the case, it cannot be regarded as evidence to back up NEA's claims.

I don't think he intends to put forth sound discussions but to provoke forummers like cBMouTh and Debonerman to chase after his tail, then play victim. They may be WP supporters or opposition supporters who also support SDP/NSP/SPP, but he will still paint them as purely WP supporters then the "martyrdom syndrome" will take over.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

That cannot be applied here because the hawkers have already PAID for the service to AHPeTC and there isn't any "competition" to talk about but just double charging.

This is not the case whereby Hawkers would "change" the service provider, AHPeTC by asking for another quotation from ATL so that they could refuse to pay AHPeTC but to ATL.

It is a flawed argument here that ATL is "free" to quote as there is no other way for the hawkers to get the service except AHPeTC. ATL is just the contractor to provide the service on behalf od AHPeTC. This is just a plain case of ATL getting greedy and wanted to get extra charges from hawkers.

Goh Meng Seng

As mentioned before, it is only a breach if there is a non-compete clause. In this case, there is no non-compete clause. WP made this quite clear when they indicated that ATL was free to provide quotes to anyone. If there was a non-compete clause, they would have indicated that ATL cannot provide quotes freely as they are bound by the conditions of the non-compete.

On breach of contracts with non-compete clauses, the yardstick for liquidated damages and other legal remedies is for the contract to be awarded in breach of the non-compete. This is because to enforce the clause and claim damages, you have to go to Court and show the damage you have suffered as a result of the breach. If there is a quote but no award, you obviously have not suffered any damage. You therefore effectively have no case.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Haha... ironically, it was AHPeTC which is IGNORANT about new technology available to reach the ceilings..dude... that is why they only mention about scaffolding and assume it is for the high rise cleaning. Talking about professionalism.... haha....


Goh Meng Seng

GMS has no idea how certain industries operate. He assumes cleaning of unreachable areas must have scaffolds and they can be set up within 1 or 2 days.

He also thinks contractors who quote additional things in a quotation intends it as a form of fraud. This contractor must be mild by evil and stupidity standards. Why put in extra stuff knowing the hawkers will not accept. There are so many other options dishonest contractors are known to go for like mark up high prices, or do-first-bill-later without raising a variation order, or set up a few pseudo companies. Hawkers are vulnerable as they are not property managers who will ask for "3 quotes".

It is not a fact that his own opinions are facts. He has not got the basics right.

 

[Debonerman]

can't really say he's hiding in here, he signs off every post with his name in full.

A rare prostitute who had proudly tattooed his profession on his forehead.

 

[tanwahp]

Haha... ironically, it was AHPeTC which is IGNORANT about new technology available to reach the ceilings..dude... that is why they only mention about scaffolding and assume it is for the high rise cleaning. Talking about professionalism.... haha....

At least I didn't hear them act clever.

They may be unfamiliar with new technology. You are unfamiliar with old technology but try to act as if you know.

 

[tanwahp]

Correct move in my opinion. Both sides would benefit from closure.

WP started off trying to reconcile amicably. LTK ends off doing the same. Hence, WP is the one that has been consistent in being reconciliatory in its approach, whilst NEA/VB/PAP has been shown to be consistently provocative. Since NEA/VB/PAP has been shown to be playing politics to the point of obfuscating issues and issuing misleading statements, they will be the ones walking away looking bad. WP/LTK walk away looking like gentlemen.

I won't be surprised that LTK may not agree with Sylvia's and Pritam's confrontational position in the middle of the issue. But left it alone because he also understands how anyone could be piqued.

He has always favoured the non-confrontational approach and when asked he said what he said.

 

[SgParent]

can't really say he's hiding in here, he signs off every post with his name in full.

You want me to sign off as LKY?

If he is not hiding then why is he not holding a press conference in a posh hotel to repeat his many allegations? No balls? And I thought he is Mr I'm-always-correct..... geez

 

[zhihau]

And I thought he is Mr I'm-always-correct..... geez

on the contrary, his expert opinion has mostly been rubbished by us here... like how me and others would taunt him on TKL's 5% vote count

what me is referring to is his open identity in a forum like this, as well as his FB account, if you understand what me is driving at :p:p:p

 

[ChaoNiMA]

I have been hearing some interesting things, the following is what i believe was going on behind the scenes at the WP side.This whole incident did not have the blessing and support of the WP elder, LTK. it was the work of a small group within the WP who was hoping to cover up a terrible mistake they made i.e. trying to extort extra moneyfrom the hawkers. SL and PS were the ring leaders of this small group which included Yeo Soon Fei and Tai Vie Shun of the AHPETC.

 

[cBMouTh]

How many posts did cheebye mouth gms made on this issue since that claim stating that it will be his past post on it?

Seems like that cheebye mouth cannot stop yakking.