Originally posted by enquiries:
i beg to differ.
Seeing red over mistaken 'Yellow Pages'...
Posted in by admin on Fri, 2006-09-15 08:05
Diamond merchant Peter Chia works alone, does not have a secretary and takes little time to study mails that are sent to his small and spartan Boon Keng Road office.
So, in June, when the 51-year-old received a letter from what he thought was Yellow Pages, asking him to update his particulars, he filled up the form, corrected the fields that were wrong, signed it, and faxed it back.
But what he had signed was not a form from Yellow Pages updating his listing, but a $4,000 contract from another business directory company asking him to advertise for that amount.
He only realised this after he had faxed the form back to the company, Asian Business Directories (ABD), which publishes the Singapore Business Pages.
The logo on the ABD form was square and yellow ? similar to that of Yellow Pages, said Mr Chia, who added that he did not read the fine print on the letter before signing and faxing it.
"I was shocked. I have never come across such a thing, that a business deal is sealed by a faxed contract," he told Today.
After seven days of trying to contact the company to nullify the contract, he was told to pay 70 per cent of the fee ? or $2,975 ? to withdraw the contract. Mr Chia refused and was later sent a warning letter by ABD, saying it would take legal action if it does not receive the money from him.
Ms Lim Mei Jun, a senior marketing communications manager at Yellow Pages, told Today that her company had received "less than 10" complaints about ABD from advertisers.
When told that people have complained that they thought the letter was from Yellow Pages, Ms Lim said: "Yellow Pages Singapore is a known and reliable brand. Hence it is not surprising that it is 'used' by other directory companies to appeal to businesses."
Yellow Pages has since sent letters to advertisers, asking them not to mistake the Singapore Business Pages for it.
In all, 51 business owners are known to have signed and returned the contract.
Of these, 24 paid between $800 and the full amount to ABD, said computer games shop owner Willy Sng, 34, who also found himself in the same plight as Mr Chia.
As of three weeks ago, 19 companies had paid up to $60,000 in total. Some of the firms that Today contacted did not want to speak about the issue.
Mr Chia and Mr Sng are among an initial group who banded together to report the matter to the Commercial Affairs Department. Spokesman for the police, Assistant Superintendent Stanley Norbert, told Today that the police have recently received several complaints against ABD, but have decided to take no further action upon reviewing the cases.
An irate Mr Chia also complained to the Consumers Association of Singapore but was told to go to the Singapore Mediation Centre or the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) for help.
But he did not, saying that if he went to the SCT, it might be taken that he had agreed that the contract was binding and that he would have to pay a lower fee to get out of it. Until now, Mr Chia has not heard from them, nor has he received any lawyer's letter from the company.
When contacted, Mr Christian Hamoeller, one of ABD's directors, said potential clients had enough time to read the contract and reply if interested.
"(These are) people who haven't read the contract and try to blame us for their mistakes," he said, adding that lawyers' letters have been sent to those who refuse to pay. He declined to say what his firm would do if they ignore the letters.
Now Mr Sng, who also refused to pay, is worried that this contract will return to haunt him because there has been "no closure", even though he has not heard from ABD for several months.
In such cases, lawyer Vijai Parwani of Parwani & Co said if negotiations with the company fail and the firm insists that they pay up, they have to decide whether the case is worth the cost of defending it in court.