TAYLOR

Reflective Journal

 

A Vietnamese tourist was left in tears after a nightmarish ordeal when buying an iPhone 6 for his girlfriend at Mobile Air, a shop in Sim Lim Square.

 

Mobile Air made headlines recently for refunding a woman $1,010 in coins, which included one-cents and five-cents.

According to a report inLianheZaobao, the Vietnamese tourist was on holiday with his girlfriend in Singapore and after some research, he found out there was ready stock for the phone in Sim Lim Square.

 

He is reportedly a factory worker with a monthly income of $200 and took months to save up for the phone as his girlfriend's birthday present.

 

Mobile Air, the offeror offered to sell the iPhone 6 for $950 to the offeree to the Vietnamese tourist. The contract was made for the phone to be sold to the Vietnamese tourist for $950.

 

The report states he was quoted $950 for the phone at Mobile Air and he excitedly made payment in cash. Thinking is was safe to shop in Singapore, he did not scrutinize the documents closely.

 

The salesperson did not tell him about the terms and condition in the documents and the terms and conditions were not display obvious enough to be spotted instantly.

 

In addition, he was not fluent in English. The salesperson did not assist in understanding the terms and conditions. When he wanted to leave the shop with the phone, staff members from Mobile Air then asked if he wanted a warranty package of one or two years.

 

He decided to take the one-year package, thinking it was complimentary.

To his surprise, he was asked to fork out another $1,500 for the one-year warranty package. He was told that if he did not pay up, he could not leave with the phone.Mobile Air has just breached the contract by not giving phone to the Vietnamese tourist and they tried to extort more money from him by not releasing the phone and asking for another sum of money to release the phone.

 

Not knowing what to do, he knelt down and tearfully begged for a refund.

 

He said staff members at Mobile Air laughed at him and no passers-by were willing to help him.

Mobile Air subsequently agreed to refund him $600, but his girlfriend refused to leave the shop $350 poorer. Staff members at the shop also told her they will retract their offer of $600 if she called the police.Mobile Air then offered to refund $600 to him but his girlfriend refused the offer. Mobile

 

However, his girlfriend decided to call the police.

When the police arrived, Mobile Air showed them the signed invoice and offered to refund the couple $70.

 

CASE officers were called in subsequently and the couple got back a refund of $400. The tourist said he accepted the refund because he had to return to Vietnam in two days and was not sure if CASE could help him get back his full refund back.He only accepted the part refund as he had no choice because he needed to return to his home country soon.

 

This case is related to Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd [1924] UKHL 2. This case is regarding the intention to create legal relations in commercial arrangements. To create a contract there must be a common intention of the parties to enter into legal obligations, mutually communicated expressly or impliedly. Just like JR Crompton & Bros Ltd, Mobile Air entered a contract to sell something to their clients. But both of them fell short by refusing to supply the product. Either side is free to abandon the agreement and to refuse to assent to any legal obligation; when the parties are bound they are bound by virtue only of the subsequent document. As for the tourist he had the rights to abandon the legal obligation of having to pay the extra sum and receive a full refund. He the right to be exempted from the contract by notice. It is an exclusion clause and it will not be incorporated into a contract unless the party affected actually knew of it. In order for notice to be adequate, the document bearing the exclusion clause must be an integral part of the contract and given at the time the contract is made which did not happened as Mobile Air tried to take advantage of him being unaware and not fluent in English.

 

This exemption clause is the same as Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel [1949] 1 KB 532 case. MrsOlley was a long staying resident of the Marlborough Court Hotel, Lancaster Gate, London. As usual she left her room key on a rack behind the reception one day, but when she came back it was gone. Inside her room, her fur coat had been stolen. (A witness called Colonel Crerer, who was sitting in the lounge, saw a person go in and come out again with a parcel fifteen minutes later.) The porter had apparently been cleaning a bust of the Duke of Marlborough and failed to notice. MrsOlley asked to be repaid for the cost of the coat. The Hotel pointed to an exclusion clause on a notice behind a door in the bedroom leading to a washbasin, which said, "The proprietors will not hold themselves responsible for articles lost or stolen, unless handed to the manageress for safe custody." but the copies of the notice was on the bedroom door which was not likely to be notice by the normal person. Not only must the terms of the contract be clearly proved, but also the intention to create legal relations  “the intention to be legally bound” must also be clearly proved.He can only claim the phone and not claim for damages or claim for a refund.