My view of NTIparis
-
a few days ago, i joined NTIparis, thanks to a "friend" and spend $1600+ which is alot for someone my age. regreted my decisions afterward.. tried to get refund, and can't cos technically i have agreed by signing the MOPI, and the other forms. (yes, i can only blame my stupidity for tht
)
earning back my money by inviting my friends to join is definitely not an option for me. cos the way i see it, friendship is priceless, and it's not worth to sacrifice tht for a measly few hundred bucks.
so i decided to let it go and learn from this experience...
haiz... is not tht NTIparis is a scam or anything, but wat disgust me is the age group they target which is ppl ard 18-20s who is more naive and gullible
and the way they did it... they are professional, they know wat ppl our age really want like quick money, experience, recognition,etc etc
they are very persistent too, for me i got a 5-6hours of convincing be4 i finally "lost" (
too bad i not as mentally strong as other ppl)
lastly i just wan to say tht i am not anti-mlm or anything, but i just wan to advice everyone out there to be more careful.. nvr act on impulse, and make sure u know 100% sure wat u are getting into -
Maybe all those who feel they have been scammed by this coy should group together to either file a complain, or look into taking civil action.
In my uninformed opinion, i think you guys are unlikely to win, BUT you may be able to argue that the contract was entered into under misrepresentation, duress or Undue Influence. Just because you signed something does not mean that you have no recourse.
Might be worth a try...Go consult your friendly neighbourhood lawyer. -
nope, latest news, they write their forms in such a way you cannot legally pursue the coy for refunds or anything
meaning, once you are sucked in, its bye bye to your money...
and looking at the rate of people coming to look for refunds...the bubbles gonna burst one day
-
How? Clauses to the effect of "I declare that i have not been forced into entering into this contract" or "I have not been lied to" is certianly not enough to preclude the possibility of getting the contract voided on the grounds of misrepresentation, duress or Undue influence.Originally posted by laurence82:nope, latest news, they write their forms in such a way you cannot legally pursue the coy for refunds or anything
meaning, once you are sucked in, its bye bye to your money...
and looking at the rate of people coming to look for refunds...the bubbles gonna burst one day
And there is almost no way to preclude the courts. -
The biggest problem is that you must show evidence that you have been forced to enter into contract under duress and undue influence...Originally posted by lwflee:How? Clauses to the effect of "I declare that i have not been forced into entering into this contract" or "I have not been lied to" is certianly not enough to preclude the possibility of getting the contract voided on the grounds of misrepresentation, duress or Undue influence.
And there is almost no way to preclude the courts. -
Yes, proving the allegation is always a problem but i do not think this is an unsurmountable problem. After all Lawyers have been doing so for hundreds of years, and in this case, we probably have telephone records, emails and, judging by the number of complaints, plenty of witnesses.Originally posted by laurence82:The biggest problem is that you must show evidence that you have been forced to enter into contract under duress and undue influence...
Remember, in the civil courts, the standard of proof required is only on the balance of probabilities.
I will admit that imo it would be difficult to get the contract voided, but i feel that filing a civil action should not be discounted, at least until a lawyer has had a look into the issue. -
but then again, unless there is or are some groups of people uniting to file suits, the most likely end is bubble burst.....Originally posted by lwflee:Yes, proving the allegation is always a problem but i do not think this is an unsurmountable problem. After all Lawyers have been doing so for hundreds of years, and in this case, we probably have telephone records, emails and, judging by the number of complaints, plenty of witnesses.
Remember, in the civil courts, the standard of proof required is only on the balance of probabilities.
I will admit that imo it would be difficult to get the contract voided, but i feel that filing a civil action should not be discounted, at least until a lawyer has had a look into the issue.
can see the repercussions..... -
yup, the (new?) MOPI got stateOriginally posted by laurence82:nope, latest news, they write their forms in such a way you cannot legally pursue the coy for refunds or anything
meaning, once you are sucked in, its bye bye to your money...
and looking at the rate of people coming to look for refunds...the bubbles gonna burst one day
"i shall not legally pursue and harass my introducer and the company on my intent to refund"
but yeah judging by the look of how things are going, they are bound to go down sooner or later -
That clause will probably be held to be void in the courts. But ya - I doubt ppl will band together to try and sue the coy. Oh well.Originally posted by sampanboi:yup, the (new?) MOPI got state
"i shall not legally pursue and harass my introducer and the company on my intent to refund" -
ha ha....... Nowadays ppl are getting more vicious......when the market start to turn bad for you, and by forcasting that they will be a drop in the sales volume, you inject steriod to it......... when you can't increase in number you increase the intensity eg: $1 to $5, no use one lah...... "changing the soup, dun change medicine" this method will cause a bigger problem. this guerilla warfare is getting more obvious.
-
ok besides duress and undue influence, under what other reasons can this clause be declared void?Originally posted by lwflee:That clause will probably be held to be void in the courts. But ya - I doubt ppl will band together to try and sue the coy. Oh well. -
[OK, i must admit at this point that i am not a singapore lawyer, and i have not done much research into Singapore law.]
But i believe the UK's Unfair Contract Terms Act, and the Sale of Goods Act 1979 are currently applicable in Singapore. I do not remember the relevant sections, but i seem to remember that indemnity clauses need to meet a reasonableness "test".
If you are looking into the law, i suggest you look into those 2 statutes. AFAIR, they are the more important statutes where one is dealing as a consumer, and where exclusion clauses are concerned.
Further, in my uninformed opinion, it is a settled principle of law that no one can exclude the courts jurisdiction. -
As long as anyone who wants to get refund goes down in a group, they can. If not, just go straight to CASE or SMALL CLAIM.
That statement doesn't stand in term of law. Esp 60 days refund is a must in all MLM companies. In addition, I believe that this is not written by lawyers or maybe in a stricter phrase... not a good experienced lawyer.
Just another sentence to scare off Singapore young people and maybe those who have not come in contact with legal matters. -
I disagree. Imo, it might be worth leaving that clause not only for the reasons you put forth, but also because even if it is likely that the clause would be held to be void, the rest of the contract might still be binding.Originally posted by jojoma:In addition, I believe that this is not written by lawyers or maybe in a stricter phrase... not a good experienced lawyer.
Basically, we are potentially looking at a win-win situation for the party drafting the contract. -
FYI, I mean ONLY that statement, not referring to the rest of the contract.Originally posted by lwflee:I disagree. Imo, it might be worth leaving that clause not only for the reasons you put forth, but also because even if it is likely that the clause would be held to be void, the rest of the contract might still be binding.
Basically, we are potentially looking at a win-win situation for the party drafting the contract.
Who are the WE? -
I know you were referring to that particular. But you went on to imply that the clause was ineffective and that the contract was probably drafted by a layman or a lousy lawyer.Originally posted by jojoma:FYI, I mean ONLY that statement, not referring to the rest of the contract.
Who are the WE?
My response was that i disagree because as you said, that clause might scare ppl away from the courts, and also because even if that clause was void, the rest of the contract is still workable and therefore possibly still binding.
'We' refers to the ppl on the forum. -
I think u r jumping to your conclusion. Never did I mentioned anything about the contract. Just that line which is added recently and this line might just be added by themselves without help from their " official legal advisor", if u know who they are.Originally posted by lwflee:I know you were referring to that particular. But you went on to imply that the clause was ineffective and that the contract was probably drafted by a layman or a lousy lawyer.
My response was that i disagree because as you said, that clause might scare ppl away from the courts, and also because even if that clause was void, the rest of the contract is still workable and therefore possibly still binding.
'We' refers to the ppl on the forum.
I have seen the contract before, I know the style of that legal advisor, what about you?
That clause just prevent people from getting their refund if they do not understand law. -
Read the below :Originally posted by lwflee:I know you were referring to that particular. But you went on to imply that the clause was ineffective and that the contract was probably drafted by a layman or a lousy lawyer.
My response was that i disagree because as you said, that clause might scare ppl away from the courts, and also because even if that clause was void, the rest of the contract is still workable and therefore possibly still binding.
'We' refers to the ppl on the forum.
That statement doesn't stand in term of law. Esp 60 days refund is a must in all MLM companies. In addition, I believe that this is not written by lawyers or maybe in a stricter phrase... not a good experienced lawyer.
It's only specifically pointing to that statement, nothing else. Pls do not distort and break the paragraphy into two!! -
ok ok there is a misunderstanding here
what matter most is, besides what specific part of UCTA and SGA we can apply?
Btw, i seriously dont think we can apply SGA
it got nuthing to do with the quality of the products -
I'll be patient with you...Originally posted by jojoma:I think u r jumping to your conclusion. Never did I mentioned anything about the contract. Just that line which is added recently and this line might just be added by themselves without help from their " official legal advisor", if u know who they are.
I have seen the contract before, I know the style of that legal advisor, what about you?
That clause just prevent people from getting their refund if they do not understand law.
My response
1) I never implied that you were referring to the contract as a whole.
2) My response was to your suggestion that the person who added that clause is either not a lawyer, or a lousy lawyer.
3) I disagree with your suggestion.
Why?
1) The clause might scare ppl into not taking legal action.
2) Even if the clause is ineffective, it is possible that the rest of the contract is binding.
Therefore
1) I feel it is logical to leave that clause in. -
Wah Liew... You want me to do free legal research for you....Originally posted by laurence82:ok ok there is a misunderstanding here
what matter most is, besides what specific part of UCTA and SGA we can apply?
Btw, i seriously dont think we can apply SGA
it got nuthing to do with the quality of the products -
not for me thoOriginally posted by lwflee:Wah Liew... You want me to do free legal research for you....
neevr signed up, and even walked halfway out from their presentation.... -
clearly you don understand Singapore law......Originally posted by lwflee:I'll be patient with you...
My response
1) I never implied that you were referring to the contract as a whole.
2) My response was to your suggestion that the person who added that clause is either not a lawyer, or a lousy lawyer.
3) I disagree with your suggestion.
Why?
1) The clause might scare ppl into not taking legal action.
2) Even if the clause is ineffective, it is possible that the rest of the contract is binding.
Therefore
1) I feel it is logical to leave that clause in. -
Why? Explain please, preferably with reference to the relevent statutes and case law.
-
To make things simple for those who wanne refund, go straight to SMALL CLAIM & CASE. Especially those who have given the money and didn't get the products. These are the places that you can approach with such a clause included.Originally posted by laurence82:not for me tho
neevr signed up, and even walked halfway out from their presentation....
However, do make sure you have your invoice and MOPI with you.