EPTAfter that, it's all a case of proving things. If you prove the conversations, you win because he didn't fulfill his contract, therefore you have no obligation to pay. The old contract is void.
Law students, help. - Page 2
| Blogs > konadora |
|
SkytoM
Austria1137 Posts
After that, it's all a case of proving things. If you prove the conversations, you win because he didn't fulfill his contract, therefore you have no obligation to pay. The old contract is void. | ||
|
Kalingingsong
Canada633 Posts
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. well no, its just that, if your dad's lawyer is doing his job, he should be able to tell you most of what you need to know within a reasonable time [he's suppose to be the expert after all, if not you might want to switch to a new lawyer]. The rest of us can only give you vague assessments based on laws from other jurisdictions (I think so far we've had US, Canada, and even Russia? [which is not a common law country]). Which might be helpful, but ultimately its up to your lawyer to apply the laws of Singapore. | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66224 Posts
On March 23 2011 23:00 SkytoM wrote: I would say the verbal conversations altered the contract. In my legal system, verbal contracts are allowed. After that, it's all a case of proving things. If you prove the conversations, you win because he didn't fulfill his contract, therefore you have no obligation to pay. The old contract is void. not sure how to prove the conversations though. maybe recording somewhere... On March 23 2011 23:03 Kalingingsong wrote: well no, its just that, if your dad's lawyer is doing his job, he should be able to tell you most of what you need to know within a reasonable time [he's suppose to be the expert after all, if not you might want to switch to a new lawyer]. The rest of us can only give you vague assessments based on laws from other jurisdictions (I think so far we've had US, Canada, and even Russia? [which is not a common law country]). Which might be helpful, but ultimately its up to your lawyer to apply the laws of Singapore. right, sorry. just really upset and frustrated, so i'm sorry for my snappy response. i havent met the lawyer and i dont think my dad told me the exact 100% of what the lawyer said, that's why im just trying to see if i can help in any way. | ||
Chill
Calgary25981 Posts
| ||
|
saritenite
Singapore1680 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. CASE could work, but we're talking about brokers and financial institutions here. Might be wise to lodge a complaint with MAS (Monetary Authorities of Singapore) too. MAS has been very tight on these sort of transactions following 2008. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32075 Posts
| ||
|
C.W.
88 Posts
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 thought that they approved of the loan application not the loan. But why the hell, indeed. "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. As someone already stated your dad can always sue the bank for damages because he depended on the contract with the bank (-> "breach of faith"), so that the bank has essentially to pay the broker. Guess that's the easiest solution here. | ||
|
merz
Sweden2760 Posts
But what's been mentioned before is that all you can get from law students not residing in singapore is a comment on how it works in our jurisdictions which doesn't really help you at all because you need experts on singapore law. What's your lawyers stance on this, like more specifically? And on what grounds does the broker claim that you are legally bound to pay him? | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
unless im missing something it looks like a free win? | ||
|
tyCe
Australia2542 Posts
Based on the facts, it doesn't seem you have any evidence that the bank did anything wrong. Depending on whether your dad can get more information and credible evidence, he might have a case of fraud against the bank and the broker. However, that's probably impossible given the lack of information behind the bank's decision-making. In any case, your dad should probably avoid a case against a major bank as they'll presumably drag the case on in cost and time by procedural means. So your best bet is against the broker, framed under contract. If your dad wants to claim the money back or avoid paying the rest to the broker, then the case will hinge on the wording of contract itself as it's basically the conclusive evidence of the agreement between your dad and the broker. Specifically, the case will hinge on the interpretation of "approval". Your dad should probably look for circumstantial evidence pointing to the interpretation of the time of "approval" as when the loan money is received, as well examining standard practice of similar loan brokering contracts. I'm not sure if your dad can use the point of his handicapped English since the wording of the contract is pretty much conclusive, and most likely the standard practice will be considered conclusive evidence of what "approval" actually means. Anyway, as I said, I'm a pretty bad law student, so you should definitely consult a professional lawyer. There's probably other means of remedy like what Kalingingsong said about the verbal agreement forming the basis of promissory estoppel, but that would only work if your dad relied on that promise to his detriment (and from what you said, it seems that the hurt was already suffered before that verbal agreement, and plus you'd need evidence of the agreement). | ||
|
tyCe
Australia2542 Posts
On March 23 2011 23:26 turdburgler wrote: by the way the op phrases it, the broker is due a percentage of the loan recieved, but your dad hasnt been loaned any money yet, so infact the broker has taken money for "work" he hasnt done, or cant do. which is either misrepresentation or fraud. unless im missing something it looks like a free win? Yeah, but the OP would have phrased in the way that he and his father understood the contract. However, the agreement will be what is actually worded in the contract itself. Maybe, the OP's father can claim misrep from the broker by saying something and asking him to sign another. However, the Court would probably say that his father should have read and understood the contract thoroughly. So it's gonna hinge on what the contract actually means, and if it's up for interpretation, then what standard practice and circumstantial evidence will conclude it means. Basically, we can't help the OP any further unless we see the contract ourselves. In all honesty, I think the OP's father has a strong case, but it can all change based on the contract itself. | ||
|
~ava
Canada378 Posts
| ||
|
ipx
Australia34 Posts
Thing is you need someone who knows what they are doing to look at the contract and look at the way in which this remuneration works. You say that the broker was meant to "get a percentage of the loan on approval of the loan". But in essence the loan was declined? Thus he would get no remuneration but we need the exact contractual wording not your interpretation of the wording. There may be other terms that deal with what happens if there is a decline and if there are inconsistencies parts of the contract could be severed or the contract could be void due to them. Mate there are heaps of issues that could theoretically apply... You have to look at the specific wording of the contract and construct it in your mind given the local legal principles. Thing is because you don't have any legal training you won't know what to look for and what is important. Best seek a commercial lawyer and NOT a local wills+conveyancing lawyer as they don't know what they are doing. Also local laws may have a slight twist to them but if that twist applies to your situation it means a completely different outcome. You should absolutely not listen to advice given on the basis of another country's laws. Good luck!! | ||
|
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
Would going to the media help? I think it's just a couple of bad people in the DBS bank doing shit like this, but the bank should at least take some responsibility. | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66224 Posts
the broker apparently didn't give a copy of the contract to my dad, and now he's not answering calls, nor is he willing to give a copy of the contract over to my dad. | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On March 23 2011 23:42 tyCe wrote: Yeah, but the OP would have phrased in the way that he and his father understood the contract. However, the agreement will be what is actually worded in the contract itself. Maybe, the OP's father can claim misrep from the broker by saying something and asking him to sign another. However, the Court would probably say that his father should have read and understood the contract thoroughly. So it's gonna hinge on what the contract actually means, and if it's up for interpretation, then what standard practice and circumstantial evidence will conclude it means. Basically, we can't help the OP any further unless we see the contract ourselves. In all honesty, I think the OP's father has a strong case, but it can all change based on the contract itself. as far as im aware, atleast in english law. if you are told one thing, and they give you a contract that states another you arent expected to of actually read it, because as a hired consultant/professionally they are expect to be more experience with the jargon and phrasing than you are, and its part of their job to explain it to you. but i might be wrong, and it might be situational | ||
|
magicbullet
Singapore163 Posts
Like others have said, your dad needs to engage a real lawyer for advice. What legal recourse available to your dad really depends on the exact wordings of the contract. You can't really build a case just with a brief summary of the facts. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32075 Posts
On March 24 2011 00:32 konadora wrote: just another bit of info that my mom just told me: the broker apparently didn't give a copy of the contract to my dad, and now he's not answering calls, nor is he willing to give a copy of the contract over to my dad. I don't understand why you're still accepting advice from people that have no understanding of law, let alone the specific laws that govern your country. Find a different lawyer if you feel yours is bad enough that you feel inclined to get input from the internet. shit, if this is gonna have legs in a court of law, probably the last thing you want to do is go blabbering about it on a public forum | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25981 Posts
On March 24 2011 01:05 Hawk wrote: I don't understand why you're still accepting advice from people that have no understanding of law, let alone the specific laws that govern your country. Find a different lawyer if you feel yours is bad enough that you feel inclined to get input from the internet. shit, if this is gonna have legs in a court of law, probably the last thing you want to do is go blabbering about it on a public forum This thread is amazing. Someone who wasn't actually part of the situation trying to give complex details of a contract he's never seen over the internet to potential law students using third-party information. What could go wrong? | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66224 Posts
On March 24 2011 01:05 Hawk wrote: I don't understand why you're still accepting advice from people that have no understanding of law, let alone the specific laws that govern your country. Find a different lawyer if you feel yours is bad enough that you feel inclined to get input from the internet. shit, if this is gonna have legs in a court of law, probably the last thing you want to do is go blabbering about it on a public forum i didn't meet my dad's lawyer, so i have no idea about his capabilities. but i think the notion of helping here is great, but realistically it's gotten a bit messy. i was just trying to see if i can do anything to help my dad in any way. though the lawyer should have covered everything. thanks for the responses guys, i'll ask my dad to go through the options here and see if the lawyer has already covered all these. thanks a lot once again. | ||
| ||
