Monday, June 14, 2010
mistake, misrep, non est factum, undue influence
so my grandpa, unable to speak fluently in any language other than hokkien/teochew, and unable to read english, signed a contract with a singtel guy who came knocking at his door promoting mio tv. my grandpa thought he was signing up for a package which included the world cup, and thought the package was $20+ a month. he signed a years' contract. as it turns out, the contract included 4 different packages of programmes, but did not include the world cup. the total cost of these packages was not $20+, but $70+ a month.
when i called singtel and found out about this today, i was shocked and angry, especially when told that to terminate the contract would incur a penalty charge of $660. thankfully, i was told that it is likely that the penalty charge would be waived. otherwise, i'll have this incident splashed all over the internet and press, and i'll file a claim against singtel.
on separate note, it was only a few years ago where i'll have thought 'unfair', but will not know what recourse i had. now i could think of several causes of action to vitiate the contract in this situation. if law sch had not trained me to be sharper, quicker, and more nimble with my thoughts, then at least i was taught the law, and how to use it :)
so my grandpa, unable to speak fluently in any language other than hokkien/teochew, and unable to read english, signed a contract with a singtel guy who came knocking at his door promoting mio tv. my grandpa thought he was signing up for a package which included the world cup, and thought the package was $20+ a month. he signed a years' contract. as it turns out, the contract included 4 different packages of programmes, but did not include the world cup. the total cost of these packages was not $20+, but $70+ a month.
when i called singtel and found out about this today, i was shocked and angry, especially when told that to terminate the contract would incur a penalty charge of $660. thankfully, i was told that it is likely that the penalty charge would be waived. otherwise, i'll have this incident splashed all over the internet and press, and i'll file a claim against singtel.
on separate note, it was only a few years ago where i'll have thought 'unfair', but will not know what recourse i had. now i could think of several causes of action to vitiate the contract in this situation. if law sch had not trained me to be sharper, quicker, and more nimble with my thoughts, then at least i was taught the law, and how to use it :)