The Small Claims Tribunals are part of the Subordinate Courts of Singapore. The Tribunals can provide a fast and affordable forum for the resolution of small claims between consumers and suppliers. The Tribunals have jurisdiction to hear claims not exceeding $10,000. Where the Claimant and the Respondent consent in writing, the jurisdiction can be raised to $20,000. All claims must be filed at the Small Claims Tribunals within one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued (The Subordinate Courts of Singapore, 2012).
Most importantly, the scope and powers of Small Claims Tribunal do include the following categories: A contract for sale of goods (Eg, supply and delivery of goods like stationery, flowers, fruits, raw material, mineral water and so on), A contract for a provision of services (It can be renovation, tuition, business consultancy or construction services and so on (Small Claims Tribunal, 2012).
So based on the above facts given, here’s an overview of a scenario of a case XiaoYun V Nokia. Overview: – Xiaoyun brought a Nokia phone in Aug 2007 with contract at $388.
Unfortunately, the phone did not function properly the first week after she brought it. She tried to ask for exchange; however, Nokia replied “there’s no such policy”. Therefore, Xiaoyun file a claim against Nokia through SCT as there’s no proper follow up by Nokia after a month. Finally, Xiaoyun won the case and claimed $778 by SCT in 18 Dec 2007 (CNET ASIA, 2012).
The Essay on The Problem Of Nokia Company
Nokia has a long history of successful change and innovation, adapting to shifts in markets and technologies. From its humble beginning with one paper mill, the company has participated in many sectors over time: cables, paper products, tires, rubber boots, consumer and industrial electronics, plastics, chemicals, telecommunications infrastructure and more. Most recently, Nokia has been best known ...
In the above scenario, Xiaoyun as a consumer was right to file a claim against Nokia. First, it’s a quick and inexpensive way to resolve small claims between consumer and supplier.
In this case, the phone that Xiaoyun brought was $388. Second, she was right to approach SCT as it has the scope and power to request claims against the supplier as the supplier has supplied a defective goods to consumer. Thus, it’s beneficial for Xiaoyun to resolve the dispute via Small Claim Tribunal. Q1B Overview: – Jonathan (offeror) was planning to sell away his yacht as he has started to lose interest in sea-related activities. Jonathan heard that Bobby (offeree) was interested in buying a boat so he wrote a letter to him, offering at a price of S$300,000.
Bobby was somehow “keen to buy the yacht”, therefore Jonathan wanted a confirmation of Bobby’s acceptance since it involves a large sum of money and he has to submit paperwork to maritime authority prior to the actual sales. Jonathan also requested to receive the letter of acceptance by 5pm on Wednesday and he would proceed with the sales of S$300,000. Hence, Bobby promptly typed out and posted the letter of acceptance on Monday afternoon. By Monday, Bobby has sold part of his equity to prepare S$300,000 for the transaction and Jonathan has received Bobby’s letter at 12 noon on Wednesday.
Unfortunately, Jonathan changes his mind and decided not to sell his yacht. He wrote a letter to Bobby regarding to withdraw his offer. Offer: Jonathan heard that Bobby (offeree) was interested in buying a boat so he wrote a letter to him, offering at a price of S$300,000. The offer said that there’s an expression of willingness, by the offeror (Singapore Academy of Law, 2012) Acceptance: Bobby promptly typed out and posted the letter of acceptance on Monday afternoon. This acceptance would therefore form a contract.
As a contract is a legally binding agreement, no offer or an acceptance should be made without a willingness to accept the legal consequences. Consideration: Bobby has sold part of his equity to prepare S$300,000 for the transaction. Intention to create legal relations: – Jonathan wrote a letter to Bobby as he knows Bobby was interested in buying a boat. Hence, Bobby posted back the letter of acceptance and Jonathan has received it. There was a written agreement via letter to Jonathan and Bobby, stated the intention to form legal relation and offer S$300,000 for the yacht that Jonathan planned to let go.
The Research paper on Contract Law Wajid Acceptance Offer
Business and Company Law Coursework Assignment Problem Agreements have four essential formalities that must be fulfilled in order to create a binding contract, these being offer, acceptance, consideration (it would appear that all the deals have consideration as bargaining has taken place in each of them) and intention. In the case of Wajid and his mobile phone, each of these factors must be ...
Both have agreed on the terms stated in the letter. Therefore, in this case, there’s a legal relation between Jonathan and Bobby and it can be enforced as a valid contract. Jonathan (offeror) changed his mind and wanted to withdraw his offer to Jonathan. The letter of withdrawal was sent out to Bobby on Tuesday. In this case, Jonathan will not be able to withdraw his offer due to the acceptance letter posted by Bobby. He has expressed his acceptance before Jonathan posted his withdrawal.
Under Singapore academy of Law, it stated that ‘postal acceptance rule’ stipulates that acceptance takes place when the letter of acceptance was posted, whether or not it was received by the offeror (Singapore Academy of Law, 2012).
Aside to that, terminating of an offer can only be done prior any time before acceptance with written agreement (Singapore Academy of Law, 2012).
Since Jonathan posted the withdrawal letter later than Bobby, in this case, Jonathan will not be able to terminate this contract between Bobby.
