Legal recourse for buyers of 'lemons'
By Jessica Lim
A CONSUMER here who buys a defective product, commonly called a lemon, may soon get some protection.
A proposed law will make it compulsory for retailers to either repair or replace the item. But the retailer has to be found guilty of having sold the faulty item in the first place.
Presently, no such lemon laws exist here. This means that consumers who take the retailer to the Small Claims Tribunal or file a suit, are not guaranteed of success. The outcome in such cases, said Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) executive director Seah Seng Choon, depends on the discretion of the judge.
'If the Act is amended, it will become very clear - if the goods are defective, the retailer has to either repair or replace them,' said Mr Seah, who added that Case was part of the task force that recommended the changes. 'Now, retailers can always argue their way out and say that they have no obligation to replace defective goods.'
Some retailers, for instance, blame suppliers for the faulty goods. Others refuse a refund or exchange, and repeatedly refer customers to repair centres.
The same law, which will be a provision under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, will also cover hire purchase agreements.
The consumer watchdog received 1,785 complaints about defective goods from January to last month. Last year, it attended to 1,877 cases, down from 2,224 in 2008.
Most of the complaints are about furniture, electronic goods and mobile phones.
Most of the complaints were about products not working even after repeated repairs, or breaking down shortly after purchase.
A task force, jointly led by the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and Case, was formed in September 2008 to determine the need for such a provision.
The amendment, said the ministry, seeks to enhance the legal framework for consumer protection here and will give greater latitude to the courts when considering what remedies to award a consumer. It will also empower consumers to seek remedies from retailers, the ministry said in a statement released yesterday. It is inviting feedback on the proposed provisions over the next six weeks.
Similar laws - which the new amendment mirrors - exist in Britain, the United States and Canada. In some cases, the retailer is also obligated to pay the consumer's attorney fees in a successful lemon law suit.
Consumers such as Mr Aaron Ong, 20, welcome such a law. The full-time national serviceman bought a defective laptop two years ago. The product, which had a three-year warranty, would not connect to wireless Internet.
'The retailer kept pushing the blame to the service provider,' he said, adding that the retailer sent it for repair four times. 'In the end I took them to court, but I got only a partial refund.' If there was a lemon law here at the time, he would have been able to exchange the laptop for a new one.
Retailers, ranging from big names such as electronics and furniture chain Courts to smaller ones like home-grown IT chain EpiCentre, said they support the proposed amendment.
'If passed, the amendment will lift the industry as a whole and will encourage attention to detail around product sourcing, best consumer practices and resolution policies,' said Mr Terry O'Connor, chief executive of Courts Asia, whose chain has a seven-day exchange policy.
The chief executive of EpiCentre, Mr Jimmy Fong, said that if passed, the amendment would prevent 'a few errant retailers from bringing down the whole industry'.
Others such as Mr Herman Chan, the owner of luxury stationery company Elephant & Coral in Wheelock Place, supports the provision, but is afraid that it may be abused.
'In some instances, consumers do not know how to handle a product and may break it. What will happen if this is the case? It is a double-edged sword, I hope that such cases will be handled carefully,' he said, adding that his store handles refunds on a case-by-case basis.
Mr Seah is confident that the law will not lead to a backlash for retailers. 'Consumers will first have to prove in court that they have indeed purchased a lemon. Only then will the law be enacted.'
He asked consumers to keep proof of purchase, contracts and proof of repair attempts. Once proposed, the amendment will go to the Attorney-General's Chambers for drafting and will then be submitted to Parliament for debate and approval, said Mr Seah. 'We are confident it will pass. It will probably take effect early next year,' he said.
Any submissions MTI receives will be reviewed. Changes will be made where appropriate. Submissions are to be sent to [email protected]
By Jessica Lim
A CONSUMER here who buys a defective product, commonly called a lemon, may soon get some protection.
A proposed law will make it compulsory for retailers to either repair or replace the item. But the retailer has to be found guilty of having sold the faulty item in the first place.
Presently, no such lemon laws exist here. This means that consumers who take the retailer to the Small Claims Tribunal or file a suit, are not guaranteed of success. The outcome in such cases, said Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) executive director Seah Seng Choon, depends on the discretion of the judge.
'If the Act is amended, it will become very clear - if the goods are defective, the retailer has to either repair or replace them,' said Mr Seah, who added that Case was part of the task force that recommended the changes. 'Now, retailers can always argue their way out and say that they have no obligation to replace defective goods.'
Some retailers, for instance, blame suppliers for the faulty goods. Others refuse a refund or exchange, and repeatedly refer customers to repair centres.
The same law, which will be a provision under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, will also cover hire purchase agreements.
The consumer watchdog received 1,785 complaints about defective goods from January to last month. Last year, it attended to 1,877 cases, down from 2,224 in 2008.
Most of the complaints are about furniture, electronic goods and mobile phones.
Most of the complaints were about products not working even after repeated repairs, or breaking down shortly after purchase.
A task force, jointly led by the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and Case, was formed in September 2008 to determine the need for such a provision.
The amendment, said the ministry, seeks to enhance the legal framework for consumer protection here and will give greater latitude to the courts when considering what remedies to award a consumer. It will also empower consumers to seek remedies from retailers, the ministry said in a statement released yesterday. It is inviting feedback on the proposed provisions over the next six weeks.
Similar laws - which the new amendment mirrors - exist in Britain, the United States and Canada. In some cases, the retailer is also obligated to pay the consumer's attorney fees in a successful lemon law suit.
Consumers such as Mr Aaron Ong, 20, welcome such a law. The full-time national serviceman bought a defective laptop two years ago. The product, which had a three-year warranty, would not connect to wireless Internet.
'The retailer kept pushing the blame to the service provider,' he said, adding that the retailer sent it for repair four times. 'In the end I took them to court, but I got only a partial refund.' If there was a lemon law here at the time, he would have been able to exchange the laptop for a new one.
Retailers, ranging from big names such as electronics and furniture chain Courts to smaller ones like home-grown IT chain EpiCentre, said they support the proposed amendment.
'If passed, the amendment will lift the industry as a whole and will encourage attention to detail around product sourcing, best consumer practices and resolution policies,' said Mr Terry O'Connor, chief executive of Courts Asia, whose chain has a seven-day exchange policy.
The chief executive of EpiCentre, Mr Jimmy Fong, said that if passed, the amendment would prevent 'a few errant retailers from bringing down the whole industry'.
Others such as Mr Herman Chan, the owner of luxury stationery company Elephant & Coral in Wheelock Place, supports the provision, but is afraid that it may be abused.
'In some instances, consumers do not know how to handle a product and may break it. What will happen if this is the case? It is a double-edged sword, I hope that such cases will be handled carefully,' he said, adding that his store handles refunds on a case-by-case basis.
Mr Seah is confident that the law will not lead to a backlash for retailers. 'Consumers will first have to prove in court that they have indeed purchased a lemon. Only then will the law be enacted.'
He asked consumers to keep proof of purchase, contracts and proof of repair attempts. Once proposed, the amendment will go to the Attorney-General's Chambers for drafting and will then be submitted to Parliament for debate and approval, said Mr Seah. 'We are confident it will pass. It will probably take effect early next year,' he said.
Any submissions MTI receives will be reviewed. Changes will be made where appropriate. Submissions are to be sent to [email protected]
