Search the Community

M'sian media failed to do basic checks before publishing article that sought to damage confidence in S’pore, PM Lee: Shanmugam ....i would say if this is an allegations and not true, the Gahman must sue them if not then something is not quite right.....the country integrity and trust will be tarnish. If goes to court on neutral ground, it will be very interesting. We are all waiting, action please.

woooh... 40m (12 years) spent on someone who couldn't define his job very clearly

I wonder if such a thing would happen to car insurance. Insurer cancelling your policy to avoid paying. Insurer told to pay $600,000 deposit to defend suit By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent 1 July 2011 AN INSURER, which cancelled a policy taken up by a jeweller after the shop suffered an $857,000 loss in an armed robbery, was ordered to pay 70 per cent of the sum, about $600,000, as a deposit with the court - if it wanted to defend the suit. Liberty Insurance has until July 8 to pay the deposit, or judgment would be given to Yong Sheng Goldsmith, said High Court Assistant Registrar Fong Mian Yi in a judgment released yesterday. The jeweller in New Upper Changi Road had sued Liberty for $857,000 - the value of gold jewellery items lost when three armed men staged a lightning grab-and-go raid in April last year. Yong Sheng, which sells gold and diamond jewellery and precious stones and also makes jewellery, had paid about $15,000 a year in premiums to cover all stock and merchandise used in the business. Under the policy, first taken up in 2003, the insurer was to indemnify the jeweller for losses suffered as a result of a hold-up or armed robbery, up to a policy limit of $3 million. The insurer's loss adjusters assessed the market value of the gold seized at $857,441. Yong Sheng notified the insurer's agent, Mr Johnny Tan, of its claim for reimbursement, but was told, some seven months later, that the policy had been cancelled. Liberty claimed Yong Sheng had failed to inform the insurer that its business had been disrupted by loan sharks on five occasions, between October 2009 and March last year, before the commencement of the policy. Liberty returned the $14,996 annual premiums paid. Yong Sheng, represented by lawyers Charles Phua and Stephen Cheong from Tan Kok Quan Partnership, refused to bank in the cheque and pointed out that the loan-shark incidents occurred after the policy was signed. The jeweller's director, Mr Lim Chow Kiat, also informed Mr Tan when the loan-shark harassments occurred. The police officer investigating the case also told Yong Sheng that the harassments were not linked to the armed robbery. The insurer, defended by lawyer N.K. Rajarh, argued that the last page of the proposal form carried two dates - Oct 13, 2009 and Nov 16, 2009 - and by the latter date, Yong Sheng would have known it had been subject to loan-shark harassments. However, Yong Sheng's copy of the form showed only one date - Oct 13, 2009. The jeweller was perplexed by the two dates on the insurer's copy, pointing out this issue had not been brought to its attention until the hearing day. Assistant Registrar Fong said the inclusion of the later date - Nov 16, 2009 - on the defendant's copy 'appears extremely shady and looks like an afterthought'. 'This is especially so given the very narrow space into which the date was squeezed. It is also illogical the proposal form should bear two dates.' She called this defence 'exceptionally dubious'. However, as neither side could explain the discrepancy or the circumstances surrounding the two dates at this stage of the hearing, a summary judgment against the insurer was not possible without a proper probe into the facts. The Assistant Registrar also found that as Mr Tan was an agent of the insurer, his knowledge of the harassment incidents was taken to mean the insurer also knew.

Who you gonna depend on in war ?

Quoted from MBworld "Was at in n out with friend when a group of 10 or more guys around 20yrs old started talking smack about my car. Came up to me and choked me then started punching. i landed a few good blows but after they all came in i ran out the door. im 19 and didnt know any of these guys. I have a police report open to get them. luckily i live in a small town and found them all on facebook. Waiting till morning to get them." http://www.mbworld.org/forums/c-class-w204...d-over-car.html (Not me horr!! ) So what would you do in such a situation? Say you're alone and running is not an option.

Taken from another forum. 1) DO YOUR HOME WORK Google or Yahoo the PI and if you do find info in forums, do read through the whole trends for both the positive and negative. The internet may not be the best place to do all your research but it's a start. Some PIs tend to jack up their rating artificially and come lousy clients tend slander even the best ones. Same goes for the vehicle of your choice. Read the reviews from both the good ones and bad ones and form your own opinion. 2) SEEK ADVISE If you are not an expert, seek advise from people who have been there and done that and DO NOT have anything to gain be it you get or do not get your car. Better still, ask them along if they fit the criteria and are willing to do so and is free. 3) NO LAST OFFER Unless you are looking for a customized ride or have fixed your mind on a particular model which is going to be phased out soon, don't be taken in by the "last one liao" and "MOTHER OF ALL SPECIAL OFFER" sales tactic. You're buying a car and not a house so there is a difference. There's only Bukit Batok St 8 blk 8 #08-08 but tons of Honda Freed and Toyota Wish out of the production line. Most of the time, it's better to miss a "good" deal than to be stuck in a "bad" one. 4) READ THE CONTRACT Side note is to make sure that whatever the sales person promised you is in the contract and sales agreement. Read the sales contract in detail and check on stuff like delivery, deposit return (if unable to get car and not your fault), warranty, weather you can get your own insurance / finance / workshop involved in the transaction and such. Don't get conned by the "it's a standard company form but for sure give you" routine. 5) REPUTATION MATTERS MORE THAN PRICE It's always better to get the vehicle from "old players" as they ride on "a name". During the time when Toyota recalled back a batch of Wish, the "old birds" absorbed the lost while the "fly-by-night" companies just change signboard and when you ask the same sales guys sitting around, they'll tell you "Boss run away liao". If you buy cheap "poison" milk, you can't blame them for not going through strict EU safety check when deep inside you know they may not even have the margin for it. Here's some other quick tips: - YOU MAY WISH TO DO A STA CHECK PRIOR TO ACCEPTING THE VEHICLE. THEY WILL GIVE YOU A DETAIL REPORT. REMEMBER, IT'S DETAIL CHECK AND NOT INSPECTION. - IF YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND, DO SO WITHIN 24HRS. IF YOU GO BACK AND THEY START TO HAMMER ON THE CONTRACT, YOU CAN QUICKLY TALK TO CASE. IF YOU DELAY TOO LONG, IT WILL BE ASSUMED THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN TIME TO CONSIDER THE CONTRACT AND ENTERED IT WILLINGLY WITH NO MIS-DIRECTION INVOLVED - LET THE SALES PERSON KNOW THAT YOU WANT TO USE YOUR OWN INSURANCE / WORKSHOP / FINANCE COMPANY WHEN THEY QUOTE YOU AND NOT AFTER. ELSE THEY WILL EITHER JACK UP THE PRICE LATER OR CUT CORNER LATER. - CHEAPEST IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER, IF THERE'S NO MARGIN AND FREE, WHO WANT TO WORK? - READ THE CONTRACT AND MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS IN BLACK AND WHITE. (CAN'T STRESS THIS ENOUGH)

http://www.razor.tv/site/servlet/segment/m...fend/21376.html watch it till 00:20...

Legendary Team Joins Defending Champions RICHMOND HILL, Ontario