|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
The legal system is there for one purpose: to prevent the society from causing shit and protecting it.
But it also happens to protect those that do not deserve it. Contracts, when signed by unsuspecting victims, protect the scammers. There is no reasoning, just what is written on black and white.
And that is exactly what happened to my dad.
My dad's english has never been great. I used to always think that he couldn't be someone who graduated from MIT, with his standard of English. ( Yes, he did graduate from MIT, truth. ) He has also always been a giver, never really demanding much. He would take whatever hardship by his stride and keep it all to himself, which doesn't feel so great for anyone once others find out what he's going through.
Just tonight, my dad sat me down and started talking to me. He always do, but today was different. It was all serious.
Over the next thirty minutes, he described how he got scammed by a broker, whom his lawyer suspects is working with the bank to pull it off. In a summary:
- Broker offers to grant him a loan of X amount from "A" bank
- Dad signs contract, with the condition that the broker receives certain percentage of that loan once it is approved.
- Bank sends approval letter.
- Broker starts demanding for his amount, BUT the amount he demanded was less than what we are supposed to give him. (Around few hundred bucks less)
- Bank sends loan cancellation letter, with reasons stating that my dad's company's turnover does not mean the requirement to get the X amount of loan. (Question is, why didn't the bank check this before sending the approval letter?)
- Dad requests for return of money.
- Broker responds verbally (no written notes/contracts) by saying that he'll get another bank to loan the X amount.
- Months pass, no response.
- Dad "fires" him.
- Few months later, broker sends a court letter to dad, telling him to "pay off the remaining amount" plus the legal fees.
- Dad reports case to police, police says no fault.
- Dad reports case to prosecutors. Prosecutors say the broker has violated nothing in the contract, and that if taken to court, my dad will lose as he has broken one of the agreements (he did not pay the full amount), plus he'll be fighting against a major bank.
Now, TL. I really have no idea how my dad is supposed to win this case and claim back his money. It's a really huge sum of money, which I shall not disclose. But my dad, mom and I (my sister's in China on an attachment course, she does not know yet) are feeling so upset yet helpless over this. Odds are definitely not in our favor. Of course, legally speaking, my dad is at fault because he didn't pay up the full amount. But really? Apply some basic common sense and reasoning and I'm pretty sure we can all agree on who's the one at fault. The thing is, I don't know how to translate this to legal terms.
Anyone, law student or not, if you can provide some help that tip the case in our favor even by a fraction of a margin, I'd be grateful.
|
17078 Posts
Are you still in Singapore? If so, I could edit that in the title to make it more clear.
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
Yep, still in Singapore. though i figure an american or any other person can help equally as well.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
wtf broker and DBS bank scamming people!?
|
My uncle is a barrister/my cousin is doing law, I'll see if I can hit up either of them tomorrow and if they have any experience with Singaporean law or if any Australian law advice they have can apply.
Hopefully someone else who sees this thread can help if I can't get in contact with either of them, I'm sure we have at least a few well qualified people on TL (didn't Hot_Bid do a law degree, you could try PMing him, I guess).
Thanks for all the contributions you've made to the site :D
|
Dad signs contract, with the condition that the broker receives certain percentage of that loan once it is approved.
I'm not a law student, but... Does this contract describe what happens in case bank won't approve on the loan (how much broker is paid, if ever)? I thnk this might be hugely relevant.
Also, I assume your Dad has a document confirming that he paid the broker lesser amount of cash. However, from what you wrote, I think his mistake was not re-signing the contract with broker, that would include new, lowered payement that guy agreed to recieve.
Finally, can you elaboate what does 'my dad's company turnover' mean? I don't see the context here.
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
On March 23 2011 21:56 alffla wrote:
wtf broker and DBS bank scamming people!?
supposedly, anyway. the thing is, we can't call out to the government about this because DBS is a government-owned bank, and if we talk shit about them, and we're in their turf... you know what happens to us.
On March 23 2011 21:58 Suc wrote:
My uncle is a barrister/my cousin is doing law, I'll see if I can hit up either of them tomorrow and if they have any experience with Singaporean law or if any Australian law advice they have can apply.
Hopefully someone else who sees this thread can help if I can't get in contact with either of them, I'm sure we have at least a few well qualified people on TL (didn't Hot_Bid do a law degree, you could try PMing him, I guess).
Thanks for all the contributions you've made to the site :D
thank you so much, any help will be forever be appreciated.
On March 23 2011 22:02 popzags wrote:Show nested quote +Dad signs contract, with the condition that the broker receives certain percentage of that loan once it is approved. I'm not a law student, but... Does this contract describe what happens in case bank won't approve on the loan (how much broker is paid, if ever)? I thnk this might be hugely relevant. Also, I assume your Dad has a document confirming that he paid the broker lesser amount of cash. However, from what you wrote, I think his mistake was not re-signing the contract with broker, that would include new, lowered payement that guy agreed to recieve. Finally, can you elaboate what does 'my dad's company turnover' mean? I don't see the context here.
nope, it didn't indicate it. that's the thing too. my dad is really upset over how he missed such details...
yep, he didn't sign a new contract. another mistake.
and basically, my dad's annual revenue isn't high enough to convince the bank to loan us the X amount.
|
i don't know if this would help you but try complaining to CASE.
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
On March 23 2011 22:12 JMave wrote:
i don't know if this would help you but try complaining to CASE.
what are the other agencies? other than CASE. the agency that goes around checking for corruption and shit
|
i'm not relaly sure about the other agencies. but my family had issues with the bank for like over a decade and complaining to CASE seemed to work.
|
Well, from my average guy viewpoint, if your dad can prove to the court that no relevant circumstances around his company changed between the first (approval) bank letter and the second (rejection) bank letter, he might demand a compensation from bank for cancelling the loan for no reason; after all, his company lost some benefits due to sudden, unjustified loan cancellation not to mention the whole broker affair (which is very weird TBH).
It looks like a very difficult case to win, though.
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
On March 23 2011 22:19 JMave wrote:
i'm not relaly sure about the other agencies. but my family had issues with the bank for like over a decade and complaining to CASE seemed to work.
oh alright, thanks a lot!
|
Law students can't give binding advice, you should really go to a lawyer. Assuming SG contract law is not too different from Canadian contract law (both common law countries that has english law as the basis for their laws), here's what I see:
My dad's english has never been great. I used to always think that he couldn't be someone who graduated from MIT, with his standard of English.
depending on how bad his english is, you might have a case for unconscionability, aka your dad didn't know what he was signing, therefore the contract is void.
- Dad signs contract, with the condition that the broker receives certain percentage of that loan once it is approved.
how is the word 'approved' to be interpreted? does it really mean that you just a letter of approval that might be cancelled? ("approved" doesn't necessarily mean "letter of approval") If your dad understood it mean "bank actually gives me loan", then he might have case, but it's a stretch.
- Broker responds verbally (no written notes/contracts) by saying that he'll get another bank to loan the X amount.
Do you have any other evidence that this conversation existed (hell, the broker might be stupid and even admit that he told him this)? If so you might have the broker on the hook for a new contract or promissory estoppel.
- Dad reports case to prosecutors. Prosecutors say the broker has violated nothing in the contract, and that if taken to court, my dad will lose as he has broken one of the agreements (he did not pay the full amount), plus he'll be fighting against a major bank.
lol, don't necessarily have to sue the bank, you might be able to sue the broker personally for negligent misrepresentation (aka he didn't explain things well enough, while knowing that ur dad's english is not very good).
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
On March 23 2011 22:21 Kalingingsong wrote:Law students can't give binding advice, you should really go to a lawyer. Assuming SG contract law is not too different from Canadian contract law (both common law countries that has english law as the basis for their laws), here's what I see: Show nested quote +My dad's english has never been great. I used to always think that he couldn't be someone who graduated from MIT, with his standard of English. depending on how bad his english is, you might have a case for unconscionability, aka your dad didn't know what he was signing, therefore the contract is void.
it's not horri-bad. he can get by doing businesses, but just enough to be understood. his english is really sub-par.
Show nested quote +- Dad signs contract, with the condition that the broker receives certain percentage of that loan once it is approved. how is the word 'approved' to be interpreted? does it really mean that you just a letter of approval that might be cancelled? ("approved" doesn't necessarily mean "letter of approval") If your dad understood it mean "bank actually gives me loan", then he might have case, but it's a stretch.
yep, saying that "we have approved, but we haven't actually given you yet." i still don't understand how this can be cancelled though.
Show nested quote +- Broker responds verbally (no written notes/contracts) by saying that he'll get another bank to loan the X amount. Do you have any other evidence that this conversation existed (hell, the broker might be stupid and even admit that he told him this)? If so you might have the broker on the hook for a new contract or promissory estoppel.
no evidence whatsoever. if we did then it would really be favorable to us.
Show nested quote +- Dad reports case to prosecutors. Prosecutors say the broker has violated nothing in the contract, and that if taken to court, my dad will lose as he has broken one of the agreements (he did not pay the full amount), plus he'll be fighting against a major bank. lol, don't necessarily have to sue the bank, you might be able to sue the broker personally for negligent misrepresentation (aka he didn't explain things well enough, while knowing that ur dad's english is not very good).
hmm but the thing is, we don't know what to nitpick on. like, pushing on what points did he not explain enough.
|
Well, I study American Law and can't really comment on how Singapore law works. The answer to your question, I would imagine, largely depends on what contract was signed.
The situation does appear fishy though. I mean, you were supposed to give a % to the broker once the loan was approved? I would've thought it makes more sense to give it to him once you have the money in hand. Maybe you can sue the bank for approving the loan and then canceling it. Your argument could be that the bank and you entered into a contract, you guys acted in reliance of this contract and the bank breached the K by later declining and they should be liable for the damages you incur on acting in reliance of the contract.
Then again, I'm just throwing guesses around. I have no knowledge of Singapore law and I don't have the full facts of the case.
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
On March 23 2011 22:34 Sultan.P wrote:
Well, I study American Law and can't really comment on how Singapore law works. The answer to your question, I would imagine, largely depends on what contract was signed.
The situation does appear fishy though. I mean, you were supposed to give a % to the broker once the loan was approved? I would've thought it makes more sense to give it to him once you have the money in hand. Maybe you can sue the bank for approving the loan and then canceling it. Your argument could be that the bank and you entered into a contract, you guys acted in reliance of this contract and the bank breached the K by later declining and they should be liable for the damages you incur on acting in reliance of the contract.
Then again, I'm just throwing guesses around. I have no knowledge of Singapore law and I don't have the full facts of the case.
yep, but the broker kept calling and texting my dad for the money (which i remind you again, was an amount stated less than the one in the contract). my dad got annoyed so paid first. big mistake again.
your stand seems strong though. i'd consolidate all these and pass them to my dad, who will check with his lawyer if they're feasible.
|
Please explain what exactly happened after the broker got you the loan-approval.
A. Was there a signed contract between your dad and the bank?
B. Your post implies your dad is a businessman - is that right?
C. WAS there some "dad's company's turnover"?
Basically I can tell you this using the information you gave:
There are different phases of a loan.
1. loan-application
2. borrowing-power check
3. credit-ranking check
4. check and estimation of the loan security
5. credit approval
6. loan-contract
7. appropriation of loan security
8. appropriation of the loan (contract signing)
If your dad agreed on the clause in the brokercontract, that once surpassing point 5 the broker will be granted his courtage-demand, well, then he has a case.
Usually the broker gets his courtage only in case point 8. is surpassed. This might be the best point to attack in case of a judicial proceeding since there are some legal ruses you can use.
Furthermore you can always sue the bank to grant you the loan if there was no "sudden company turnover" (which is unclear to me atm).
Please note that all my explanations are derived from german law and that there might be differences to your law system.
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
On March 23 2011 22:44 C.W. wrote:
Please explain what exactly happened after the broker got you the loan-approval.
A. Was there a signed contract between your dad and the bank?
B. Your post implies your dad is a businessman - is that right?
C. WAS there some "dad's company's turnover"?
Basically I can tell you this using the information you gave:
There are different phases of a loan.
1. loan-application
2. borrowing-power check
3. credit-ranking check
4. check and estimation of the loan security
5. credit approval
6. loan-contract
7. appropriation of loan security
8. appropriation of the loan (contract signing)
If your dad agreed on the clause in the brokercontract, that once surpassing point 5 the broker will be granted his courtage-demand, well, then he has a case.
Usually the broker gets his courtage only in case point 8. is surpassed. This might be the best point to attack in case of a judicial proceeding since there are some legal ruses you can use.
Furthermore you can always sue the bank to grant you the loan if there was no "sudden company turnover" (which is unclear to me atm).
Please note that all my explanations are derived from german law and that there might be differences to your law system.
A: yes
B: yes
C: turnover basically means revenue, i suppose. my dad used the term "turnover" but im guessing he means the same thing as revenue.
im not sure if that was written on the contract, it usually is the case, no? i'll ask him to check with his lawyer and the contract once again. i'm not sure what you mean by your sentence "Furthermore you can always sue the bank to grant you the loan if there was no "sudden company turnover" (which is unclear to me atm)." though.
also, based on the order, they should check if they can approve the loan first, before sending the approval letter, right? so why on earth did the bank send the letter before even checking?
|
I would imagine that the bank probably has some terms somewhere indicating that they can cancel. But if the reliance argument can work that would certainly be good, however, as far as I know the reliance rules is somewhat unique to the US (and civil law countries), that argument would not be as feasible in Canada for example. So it really depends on jurisdiction.
your stand seems strong though. i'd consolidate all these and pass them to my dad, who will check with his lawyer if they're feasible.
this seems fishy tho lol, why do you ask us when your dad already have a lawyer? loll
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
On March 23 2011 22:52 Kalingingsong wrote:I would imagine that the bank probably has some terms somewhere indicating that they can cancel. But if the reliance argument can work that would certainly be good, however, as far as I know the reliance rules is somewhat unique to the US (and civil law countries), that argument would not be as feasible in Canada for example. So it really depends on jurisdiction. Show nested quote +your stand seems strong though. i'd consolidate all these and pass them to my dad, who will check with his lawyer if they're feasible. this seems fishy tho lol, why do you ask us when your dad already have a lawyer? loll
what seems fishy? what is wrong with trying to look around for any bit of help that i can give my dad? power of many > power of one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
