Search the Community

http://thehearttruths.com/ https://www.facebook.com/ChannelNewsAsiaSingapore/posts/10152117852852934 typp: Mods pls help edit my topic title as the blogger has not had legal action taken against him yet... but the article is still accesible in his blog...???

Can anyone recommend a tailor to do a suit. budget is less than $1k.

Hi guys, I missed 29 Jan 13 9pm channel U recommendation of men's suit. Any idea the tailor's shop name? Quite impressed during channel u's advert of the tailor design. Please let me know of the tailor shop if you guys know. Thankyou.

Hi friends, as above.. you know those very retro sweat suit... bruce lee type is the athletic type... got another type is the very very colourful type like this pic... any idea?

Hi all, will like to find out if rim previously from Honda or Toyota car able to fit on Nissan? Understand all 3 brands PCD are of 5x114.3. Wat not sure is the size of the centre bore between the 3 brands for a perfect fitment. Pls kindly enlighten. Thk you. Regards

the following is just a hypothetical case. Car 1 (offending party) bumps into Car 2 damages the whole back bumper. Car 2 is a fully decal with custom bodykit import from overseas. In order to restore back to original look, Car 2 needs to import the back bumper, respray the bump and redo the decal. The decal cannot just do the bumper area as the whole decal design is flow from the side of the car to the back of bumper, so whole decal have to redo. Assume, to fully restore back to original look. It will cost Car 2 - $1000 for import of customize back bumper - $500 for respray of bumper (same type of protection paint as the rest of the car) - $500 to redo the car decal Car 1 is 100% at fault. Car 1 (offending party) insurance assessor after assessing decide to only pay for $500 damages to just replace to a stock bumper. With solid evidence, can Car 2 sue Car 1 (offending party) with civil suit to claim back the rest of the amount plus lawyer fee?

Just met my classy classmate for lunch few days ago. She is a savvy investor, wine connoisseur, loves good fine food, buy higher end properties etc. So she says she was driving a new car, oh what car? The Koup...but the 2liter version she quickly adds. Why the duck would she drive a Korean? I thot minimum like a 1 series, VW TSi, Audi 3. What for save so much money? For a grand funeral? Haha b4 kena flamed I would say I dont mind driving the Koup cos I not so atas like her even if Koup owner kena flamed a lot here . Shouldnt the car fit the person?

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.

Hey mcf-ers, Strange topic to be made as my first, but heck. In need of a place to buy off-the-shelf suits. Why not tailored? Cos i've got a conference next week and I just realized the one i currently have...well let's just say, doesn't flatter me anymore. Single-breasted, clean look, maybe in black or navy blue. Anyone out there with any lobangs? I heard there's one near SPH at braddell - one of the flatted factories. LL if cannot find, then no choice gotta head to G2000 or sth. Thanks in advance!

Once again, General Motors has found itself in hot water with the United Auto Workers. Way back when in 2007, GM signed a deal with Delphi to provide a total of $450 million for the UAW's Voluntary Employee Beneficiary

Any place to recommend me to alter my blazer/suit/coat?? kinda long on the sleeve and needed it to wear to my buddy wedding

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Dec, 12, 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (AP) Handing a major defeat to the auto industry, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that California can regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Ishii clears one of the hurdles in California's effort to regulate tailpipe emissions from cars, trucks and sports utility vehicles. Automakers sued the state over the tailpipe standards it approved in 2004, which would force automakers to build cars and light trucks that produce about 30 percent fewer greenhouse gases by 2016. However, the state still needs a waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to begin implementing the program. The EPA has not yet issued a decision. California and 14 other states sued the agency in November seeking quicker action. "It's a major victory and a giant step forward for California," California Attorney General Jerry Brown said of Wednesday's ruling. "I hope this will get the attention of President Bush and have him support significant caps on greenhouse gas emissions." In its lawsuit against the state, the auto industry argued that it was the federal government's responsibility to establish one uniform fuel economy standard. Without one, manufacturers would be forced to produce vehicles using too many different efficiency standards. They argued that a federal energy law passed in 1975 gives the U.S. Department of Transportation sole jurisdiction over fuel economy. But Ishii rejected that claim, saying Congress gave California and the EPA the authority to regulate vehicle emissions, even if those rules are more strict than those imposed by the federal government. "While we have not yet had an opportunity to analyze the California federal court's decision, we are obviously very disappointed by this result," said Michael Stanton, president and CEO of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers. Under the Clean Air Act, California is the only state that can set its own vehicle pollution standards, because it started regulating air pollution before the U.S. EPA was created. Other states are free to choose either the California rules or the federal government's. The state's tailpipe emissions are key to California's goal of lowering greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. About a third of the state's emissions come from cars, pickups and sport utility vehicles, a figure that will only grow if they are not regulated in the nation's most populous state.

Ex-national sportswoman claims exorcism forced on her. Priests give different account Novena Church exorcism suit begins tomorrow By Crystal Chan October 24, 2007 SHE claimed she was given a forced exorcism. The church said it was just a prayer session. The trial is due to begin tomorrow in the High Court - three years after the alleged incident. Madam Amutha Valli, 50, is accusing the Novena Church, two of its priests and seven of its helpers of 'exorcising her' against her will. The former national walker is asking the High Court to award her compensation for loss of earnings and future medical expenses. She also said that because of the trauma she suffered, she had to stop giving private tuition. The incident has also left her depressed and she is in need of 24-hour care. Madam Amutha is leaving it to the High Court to assess the damages, which would be at least $250,000 if she wins. Suits involving at least $250,000 are heard in the High Court. SAVINGS WIPED OUT She claimed her medical expenses, amounting to more than $70,000, have wiped out most of her family's savings. This included hiring a maid to look after her. The trial has been set for three weeks before Justice Lee Seiu Kin. This is believed to be the first time an exorcism is the subject of a lawsuit here. Madam Amutha said that on 10 Aug, 2004, she, her son, daughter and a male family friend went to the church at Thomson Road as her son, Mr Jairajkumar Jeyabal, then 27, wanted to pray there. She claimed that she fainted there, and that Father Simon Tan and Father Jacob Ong took her to a room to rest while her family waited outside. It is alleged that Father Tan came out of the room and told her family that she was possessed by a spirit and would need to be exorcised. Both Father Tan and Father Ong are said to have gathered seven other church helpers to assist in the 'exorcism'. The 'exorcism' lasted about 2 1/2 hours, and Madam Amutha supposedly protested against it. She claimed she was pinned to the floor by five of the helpers while the two priests stood in front of her and two other helpers recited the Bible. She also alleged that when she insisted on going to the toilet, Father Tan prevented her from closing the door, resulting in her having to relieve herself under his watch. Madam Amutha also accused the church helpers, who allegedly held her down, of verbally abusing her and threatening to 'break her head'. She and her family claimed that the church members told them to leave the place after they demanded to call the police and for an ambulance. However, the church, the priests and the seven helpers gave a different account. In his defence, Father Tan said that the actual event was not an exorcism, but a prayer session that had been requested by her and her family. He denied locking her up against her will, outraging her modesty, or injuring her during the prayer session. Father Tan claimed it was Madam Amutha who hurled vulgarities at the worshippers and at her own family as well. He said Madam Amutha was 'violently shaking the grilles leading to the prayer hall', and that her daughter told him then that her mother was 'possessed and suicidal'. ABUSIVE He also said that the family was asked to leave the church when Madam Amutha continued to be abusive. Father Ong's account is similar to Father Tan's, except for one other thing - he claimed Madam Amutha was also creeping on all fours in the church. He said a man, who claimed to be Madam Amutha's brother, told him she was possessed by a dead soldier's spirit. Following this, the brother ordered Madam Amutha: 'Soldier, stand up' and 'Soldier, march'. Madam Amutha then obeyed the 'commands' and started marching. She then returned to creeping on all fours. Her family made a police report, but no criminal charges were filed against the defendants. A report by psychiatrist Angelina Chan of Changi General Hospital stated that Madam Amutha's symptoms are a 'direct result of the traumatic incident that she experienced at the church'. LAW FIRM REJECTED CASE The suit was not without its hiccups. Madam Amutha's family first approached well-known criminal lawyer Mr Subhas Anandan. But Mr Anandan's then employer, Harry Elias Partnership, told him to reject the case as the law firm has a policy of not acting against a place of worship. Mr R.S. Bajwa of Bajwa & Co is now representing Madam Amutha. Novena Church and Father Tan is represented by Mr Tito Isaac and Mr P Padman of Tito Isaac & Co, while Father Ong is represented by Senior Counsel Jimmy Yim and MrDarrell Low of Drew & Napier, as well as Mr Cosmas Gomez of Cosmas & Co. Defence lawyers in alleged exorcism trial uncover plaintiff's past By Julia Ng, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 24 October 2007 2129 hrs SINGAPORE: A landmark trial, believed to be the first in Singapore on alleged exorcism, started its hearing in the High Courts on Wednesday. Two priests, the Novena Church and seven church choir members are being sued for allegedly forcing a rite of exorcism on Amutha Valli on 10 August 2004. Lawyers defending the Novena Church and its helpers said the 50-year-old plaintiff has hatched up a scam for compensation of at least a quarter of a million dollars. The court also heard how she had tried to hide her 25 years of psychiatric medical record. Justice Lee Seiu Kin, who is presiding over the case, has visited the church grounds to retrace what happened on that fateful night. He was accompanied by five teams of prosecution and defence lawyers. Amutha, a former national sportswoman and private tutor, had gone to Novena Church to pray with her son, daughter and sworn brother. She allegedly fainted while praying. Defence lawyers said Amutha "slithered like a snake, rattled on the grilles, and marched like a soldier on command of her sworn brother"

As some of u might know, a friend of mine was involved in an accident abt 9 mths ago where he hit a car wash bloke while creeping forward whilst in a car wash. The accident occured at about 5 km/h type of speed as vehicles moving within a car wash are all moving at a low speed. Briefly, it was a case of the car washer signalling him to move forward and then jumping in front of his vehicle carelessly. At that point in time, he followed all procedures and called for the police and ambulance etc. The police have since acquited him of any charges. Although slapped with an initial fine of $200 and 9 points for careless driving, an appeal and further investigations resulted only in a written warning to drive carefully. The injured fella was not badly hurt. Accodring to the investigation officer, it was only some bruises. Now, 9 months later, he recieved a summons from the sub court to attend a civil claim from the injured fella. What usually is the procedure?

bros and Sisters, stuff to show on my newly fixed body kit that was done with the Gang TEAM CHEVY:-> SuperChevy, ah aveo, yeoman, nismo and moria during last JB recee. 1) body kit $650rgt / S$286 2) paint spray $280 same kit with bluewind except front lips. waiting for next trip to tint my front signal lights and windows.

Check this out. I am really surprised at the outcome. A WOMAN who took BMW distributor Performance Motors to court over a manufacturing defect that made her BMW 728iA overheat won her case in the High Court yesterday. Madam Florence Wee, 44, wanted to return the car to the distributor and get a full refund; or alternatively, damages. The court said she should get damages but ruled that she was not entitled to a full refund. It is rare for such cases to get this far, said her lawyer, Mr Leslie Phua, as such cases are usually settled out of court. Madam Wee, the general manager of an advertising agency, had bought the car for $289,000 in November 1997. She said its cooling system was already defective when she bought it. She sued the company last year. By June 1999, the engine was losing coolant very quickly and every so often the 'check coolant level' indicator would come on. In August 2001, the car overheated while she was driving. She said she had driven it for only three months that year and it was in the workshop the rest of the time. She said she repeatedly asked for the car to be fixed. But even changing the entire engine block did not solve the problem. So she has kept it parked at home since last February. Yesterday, Justice Woo Bih Li ruled that Performance Motors will have to pay damages to Madam Wee. The amount will be assessed later. But he also said it was 'not right' for Madam Wee to return the car and get a full refund when the car had been used for 1 1/2 years before the problem surfaced and had been in two accidents. The judge said he was not convinced by Performance Motors' expert witness, who said the defects resulted from a power surge when the car got into its second accident in May 1999. 'In my view, the car was not of satisfactory quality,' he said. Afterwards, a beaming Madam Wee said she was relieved the case was over. 'I've not encountered such a problem since I started driving at age 18,' she said. She now drives her Subaru Forrester or Nissan Cefiro. 'I will probably scrap the BMW, because it's not safe to drive such an unroadworthy car on the road,' she said, adding she knew of two other BMW 7-series owners who had experienced similar problems with the car. But Performance Motors' Michael Goode, the general manager in charge of after-sales service, said: 'We've never had a problem quite like this one. 'When customers ask us to look at overheating problems, we've been able to resolve them quickly.' In a statement, the company said it was 'pleased to note' that the court decided that Madam Wee was not entitled to reject the car and get a full refund. It had tried to resolve the matter amicably, it said, but unfortunately the parties could not agree. Performance Motors said it had not decided if it would appeal the decision.