A case study based on exploitation of consumers

Case Study #1In June 2016, Lynette* paid $3,000 and purchased a puppy and other dog accessories from a pet shop. A few weeks after she brought the puppy home, it fell sick. Lynette brought the puppy to a veterinary clinic where it was diagnosed with a congenital disorder which required immediate surgery. The consultancy FEES and the medical expenses added up to $2,700. Lynette requested for reimbursement of the medical expenses.CASE highlighted to the pet shop that pets are covered under the Lemon Law. After negotiation, both parties agreed to a $1,500 refund to Lynette as the final settlement. Case Study #2In May 2016, Jonathan* engaged a company to repair his faulty aircon. He was told that the DEFECT would be rectified after changing a particular part of the aircon and agreed to pay $390. However, the aircon failed to work properly despite multiple repairs. Two weeks later, the company suggested chemical washing at $120. Jonathan spoke to the technician and it was agreed that he would pay the sum after the aircon was repaired. Once again, the technician failed to repair the aircon and claimed that the problem may lie with the compressor instead. He demanded payment of $120 for the chemical washing. Jonathan was dissatisfied and called a different company which repaired the aircon within three days. In lieu of the unsatisfactory services, Jonathan requested for a refund of $390.CASE highlighted to the company that it is an unfair practice under the CONSUMER Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA) to make false claims about the functionality or BENEFITS of goods or services. The company eventually agreed to refund $350 (less $40 labour fees) to Mr Tan. Case Study #3In September 2016, Ellen* visited a beauty salon for mole removal services. The beautician informed her that she would NEED to pay $10 to remove each mole. Subsequently, four moles were removed from Ellen’s skin. After the mole removal was completed, the beautician applied some liquid solution on her skin and informed Ellen that the bill was $128. Ellen disagreed as she was not informed that she would need to pay for the solution, which would supposedly aid the skin in healing without scarring. She asked for a refund of $88.CASE highlighted to the beauty salon that it was an unfair practice under the CPFTA to omit to do or say anything, if as a result, the consumer might reasonably be deceived or misled. The salon eventually agreed to refund $88 to Ellen. Case Study #4Imelda* wanted to purchase eight identical dresses for a dance performance. She visited the company's website and requested for a particular model. A photo of the desired dress was sent to her. She agreed and paid $784 for the eight dresses. However, when the dresses were delivered, she found out that the colour and cutting of the dresses differed significantly as compared to the photo. She requested to return the dresses for a refund.CASE highlighted to the company that Imelda had the right to ask for compensation under the Lemon Law if the goods delivered did not conform to contract. Both parties eventually agreed on a 50% refund to Imelda on the condition that she kept the dresses.