Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts in Singapore

Loo, Wee Ling

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-23057-9_22

Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts in Singapore

Wee Ling Loo¹⁵

Chapter
First Online: 20 November 2019

362 Accesses
1 Citations

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 36))

Abstract

Singapore embraces ‘free market’ principles and the associated principle of ‘freedom of contract.’ Nevertheless, there are controls over contractual unfairness, be it procedural or substantive unfairness. This report provides an overview of the existing controls, focusing on the controls over contract terms in Singapore. Most of these controls, whether ex-ante legislative or administrative ones, or ex-post judicial ones, do not specifically target standard form contracts, B2C or B2B contracts, or even price terms. Where price or price related terms are concerned, the Singapore government relies mainly on ex-ante legislative (and administrative) rather than ex-post judicial control. Even then, it makes light use of ex-ante regulation to limit price terms, preferring to let price terms be regulated by market forces, with legislation or administrative regulations compelling disclosure in specific sectors of industries, while encouraging self-regulatory initiatives in others.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 169.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 219.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 219.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Koh Lin Yee v Terrestrial Pte Ltd [2015] 2 SLR 497.
2.
Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed (Singapore).
3.
See Koh Lin Yee v Terrestrial Pte Ltd [2015] 2 SLR 497, [24]; see also the Singapore High Court decision that adopted the same definition: Holland Leedon Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v C&P Transport Pte Ltd [2013] SGHC 281, [230].
4.
(c 50) (UK). Singapore adopted the 12 November 1993 version of the UK Act (with minor modifications) via the Singapore Application of English Law Act (Cap 7A, 1994 Rev Ed): see s 4(1)(a), s 4(2) and the First Schedule. The UK provision was amended in 2015 leaving the provision intact except for a reference to dealing as ‘consumer’: see UK Consumer Rights Act 2015 (c 15), Schedule 4, para 5(1) & (2).
5.
Hadley Design Associates Ltd v The Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster [2003] EWHC 1617 (TCC), [78].
6.
Kay Lim Construction & Trading Pte Ltd v Soon Douglas Pte Ltd & Anor [2013] 1 SLR 1, [87].
7.
For example, the Singapore High Court referred to this possibility, obiter, in Jurong Port Pte Ltd v Huationg Inland Transport Service Pte Ltd [2009] 4 SLR(R) 53 (‘Jurong Port’), [19].
8.
See the Singapore Ministry of Trade and Industry, MTI Insights, Free Market System, 5 July 2005 at https://www.mti.gov.sg/MTIInsights/Pages/Free%20Market%20System.aspx (last accessed 14 September 2018). The website has since been revamped.
9.
Cap 50B, 2006 Rev Ed (Singapore).
10.
See https://www.cccs.gov.sg/about-cccs (last accessed 5 July 2019).
11.
See s 68 of the Enterprise Singapore Board Act 2018 (No 10 of 2018).
12.
Turnbull (2009), pp. 19–50; see also Phang (1990), pp. 22–24.
13.
Phang (1990), pp. 34–37.
14.
Letters Patent establishing the Court of Judicature at Prince of Wales’ Island, Singapore and Malacca dated 27 November 1826 made under the authority of Act 6 Geo 4, c 85.
15.
R v Willans (1858) 3 Ky 16.
16.
Phang (1990), pp. 37–39.
17.
Originally, s 6 of the Singapore Civil Law Ordinance 1878 (No 4 of 1878).
18.
Cap 43, 1988 Rev Ed (Singapore).
19.
The word ‘mercantile’ was used in the section.
20.
A 1979 amendment subjected the received English commercial law to ‘modifications and adaptations as the circumstances of Singapore may require’: see Singapore Civil Law (Amendment No 2) Act (Act 24 of 1979). See also s 5(3)(a) of the Singapore Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1988 Rev Ed).
21.
For academic literature discussing the difficulties, see, e.g. Phang (1990), pp. 42–48.
22.
Cap 7A, 1994 Rev Ed (Singapore), s 6(1).
23.
AELA (n 22), s 3.
24.
AELA (n 22), s 4 refers to the First Schedule that lists thirteen English commercial statutes and 3 imperial statutes.
25.
These included the abolition of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sitting in London making the Singapore Court of Appeal the apex court (see Singapore Judicial Committee (Repeal) Act 1994 (Act 2 of 1994)); and the issue of Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1994] SGCA 148 allowing the Singapore Court of Appeal to depart from its prior decisions on an exceptional basis.
26.
See Phang (1990) who undertook a study of the development of Singapore Contract law from 1819 to 1990.
27.
Phang (1990), pp. 63 and 81 and cases cited in footnote 410, viz Chasseriau v Mathieu & Co (1858) 1 Ky 117, 118; and WE Maxwell v Chettyapah Chetty (1868) 1 Ky 201, 202.
28.
Phang (1990), pp. 97–99.
29.
See Smith (2005), pp. 9–11.
30.
The latter being caused either by a lack of choice as to whom to contract with (e.g., in the case of monopolies) or the terms to contract on (e.g., in the case where standard contract terms were used across the industry by the supplier of goods or services), or the inability to exercise real choice where the consumer or business could not understand what the contractual terms provide.
31.
Smith (2005), pp. 11–16.
32.
Smith (2005), pp. 16–20.
33.
See generally, Goh and Tan (2011).
34.
Phang (2012), paras 02.078 and 02.084–02.085 (and accompanying footnotes).
35.
Phang (2012), paras 02.083–02.085.
36.
Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd v Sato Kogyo Pte Ltd [2014] 3 SLR 857, [30].
37.
See Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter & anor appeal [2009] SLR(R) 332 (‘Gay Choon Ing’), [64].
38.
See e.g., Singapore Court of Appeal decisions in Gay Choon Ing (n 37), [86] and Wong Fook Heng v Amixco Asia Pte Ltd [1992] 1 SLR(R) 654, [23]. See also Singapore High Court decisions in S Pacific Resources Ltd v Tomolugen Holdings Ltd [2016] 3 SLR 1049, [17] and Tan Eck Hong v Maxz Universal Development Group Pte Ltd [2012] SGHC 240, [59].
39.
There are prescribed limits in certain categories of contracts, see, e.g., Singapore Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed), s 22, read with Moneylenders Rules 2009 (S 72/2009) Rules 11, 12 & 12A.
40.
GN No S 71/1996, Rev Ed 2014 (Singapore), Order 15 Rule 12.
41.
Koh Chong Chiah & Ors v Treasure Resort Pte Ltd [2013] 4 SLR 1204 (‘Koh Chong Chiah’).
42.
See Koh Chong Chiah (n 41), [32].
43.
See Koh Chong Chiah (n 41), [86].
44.
Phang (2012), chapters 10–12.
45.
See BOM v BOK & anor appeal [2019] 1 SLR 349, [142].
46.
See, e.g., R1 International Pte Ltd v Lonstroff AG [2015] 1 SLR 521 (‘R1 International’).
47.
See Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029 (‘Zurich Insurance’), [131].
48.
See Marina Centre Holdings Pte Ltd v Pars Carpet Gallery Pte Ltd [1997] 2 SLR(R) 897 (‘Marina Centre’).
49.
Phang (2012), paras 13.159–13.222.
50.
Phang (2012), para 09.007.
51.
Phang (2012), paras 23.009–23.020. See also Allplus Holdings Pte Ltd & Ors v Phoon Wui Nyen (Pan Weiyuan) [2016] SGHC 144 (‘Allplus’), [37]; Xia Zhengyan v Geng Changqing [2015] 3 SLR 732 (‘Xia Zhengyan’), [77]–[78].
52.
See Hon Chin Kong v Yip Fook Mun & Anor [2018] 3 SLR 534 (‘Hon Chin Kong’), [132] and [134].
53.
Phang (2012), paras 06.066–06.069.
54.
See, e.g., R1 International (n 46).
55.
See Zurich Insurance (n 47), [131].
56.
See Parker v South Eastern Railway Co [1877] 2 CPD 416 (exclusion clause on the back of a ticket was not incorporated because it was not reasonably brought to the notice of the customer); see also Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 KB 532 (where notice of the clause was given after the contract was concluded), applied in the Singapore case of Trans-Link Exhibition Forwarding Pte Ltd v Wadkin Robinson Asia Pte Ltd [1996] 1 SLR(R) 424, [18].
57.
Chapelton v Barry UDC [1940] 1 KB 532 (exclusion clause on the back of a ticket was not incorporated because the ticket was in the nature of a receipt, a document which the customer would not have expected the terms of a contract to appear).
58.
J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (the ‘red-hand rule’) applied in Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] 1 QB 433, which was in turn applied by the Singapore High Court in Hakko Products Pte Ltd v Danzas (Singapore) Pte Ltd [1999] 1 SLR(R) 651, [46]–[49].
59.
L’Estrange v F Graucob, Limited [1934] 2 KB 394.
60.
Press Automation Technology Pte Ltd v Trans-Link Exhibition Forwarding Pte Ltd [2003] 1 SLR(R) 712, [39]. In this case, the exclusion clause did not appear in the contract document itself, but the document contained a clear, legible clause in bold which stated that the “All business is only transacted in accordance with the … (SFFA) Standard Trading Conditions. Copy is available upon application.” The claimant did not ask for and was not provided with copies of the SFFA conditions.
61.
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805.
62.
See, e.g., Sunlight Mercantile Pte Ltd & Anor v Ever Lucky Shipping Co Ltd [2004] 1 SLR(R) 171, [20]–[21].
63.
Marina Centre (n 48).
64.
Loo (2016).
65.
See, e.g., CST Cleaning & Trading Pte Ltd v National Parks Board [2009] 1 SLR(R) 55 and Jurong Port (n 7).
66.
See Smile Inc Dental Surgeons Pte Ltd v Lui Andrew Stewart [2012] 4 SLR 308 (‘Smile’), [19].
67.
See, e.g., Buckman Laboratories (Asia) Pte Ltd v Lee Wei Hoong [1999] 1 SLR(R) 205 (‘Buckman’), [10] and [26].
68.
See Buckman (n 67), [26].
69.
See Smile (n 66), [20].
70.
Phang (2012), para 09.007 and authority cited therein.
71.
Phang (2012), para 09.008 and authority cited therein.
72.
See Allplus (n 51), [30].
73.
See Allplus (n 51), [15].
74.
See Allplus (n 51), [30]; Xia Zhengyan (n 51), [77]–[82].
75.
See iTronic Holdings Pte Ltd v Tan Swee Leon & anor suit [2016] 3 SLR 663, [176]; see also Leiman, Ricardo & Anor v Noble Resources Ltd & Anor [2018] SGHC 16 (‘Leiman’), [213].
76.
See Leiman (n 75), [195]–[201].
77.
See Leiman (n 75), [212].
78.
Phang (2012), para 23.020.
79.
See Hon Chin Kong (n 52), [123]–[128].
80.
See Hon Chin Kong (n 52), [132] and [134].
81.
Unless the court’s equitable jurisdiction for relief against forfeiture can be invoked. However, Singapore law currently only recognises such relief in the context of contracts concerning interests in land: see Hon Chin Kong (n 52), [143](e).
82.
See Hon Chin Kong (n 52), [107], [109] and [143](d).
83.
See Hon Chin Kong (n 52), [143](b) and (f).
84.
See, e.g., Jet Holding Ltd & Ors v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd & Anor & or appeals [2006] 3 SLR(R) 769 (‘Jet Holding’), [90]–[92]; Chua Choon Cheng & Ors v Allgreen Properties Ltd & anor appeal [2009] 3 SLR(R) 724 (‘Chua Choon Cheng’), [68]. For example, in Jet Holding at [89] & [92], the Singapore Court of Appeal, on the basis of fairness and justice, implied a term in law to the effect that the business contracting parties owed each other a duty to ‘take reasonable care in the performance of the respective parts of the contract they had entered into’ in a sub-contract for the refurbishment of a vessel’s slip joint.
85.
See Chua Choon Cheng (n 84), [69].
86.
See Smith (2005), p. 163.
87.
See, e.g., Chua Choon Cheng (n 84), [69].
88.
Competition Act (n 9), s 47(1) and (2)(a) and (c).
89.
Cap 52A, 2009 Rev Ed (CPFTA).
90.
CPFTA (n 89), s 6(2) read with 6(6) limits a consumer’s claim to a subject matter valued at not more than SGD30,000 or compensation not exceeding that amount.
91.
CPFTA (n 89), s 4(d) read with Schedule 2, clause 11.
92.
CPFTA (n 89), s 7(4)(a).
93.
CPFTA (n 89), s 7(4)(e).
94.
See, e.g., Singapore Employment Act (Cap 91, 2009 Rev Ed), s 8.
95.
See, e.g., Singapore Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (Cap 33 1998 Rev Ed), s 3(1) read with The Schedule, Art IV cf. Art VI.
96.
See, e.g., UCTA (n 2), s 2(1).
97.
See, e.g., UCTA (n 2), ss 2(2) and 3(2).
98.
See, e.g., Singapore Hire-Purchase Act (Cap 125, 2014 Rev Ed), s 3(1)-(2). See also Singapore, Parliamentary Debates, 21 September 2004, vol 78 at col 703 & 705 (Mr Lim Hng Kiang).
99.
CPFTA (n 89), s 6(1).
100.
CPFTA (n 89), s 6(6).
101.
Small Claims Tribunals Act (Cap 308, 1998 Rev Ed) (SCTA), ss 22 and 23.
102.
See SCTA (n 101), s 5.
103.
See CPFTA (n 89), s 11 and Consumer Protection (fair Trading) (Cancellation of Contracts) Regulations No S65 2009, s 2 definition of ‘regulated contract’, and ss 3B and 4.
104.
CPFTA (n 89), Schedule 2 Clause 8.
105.
CPFTA (n 89), Schedule 2 Clauses 1–7, 9, 12, 14, 16–20.
106.
CPFTA (n 89), s 8(1).
107.
CPFTA (n 89), s 8(3)(a).
108.
CPFTA (n 89), s 8(6).
109.
See previous CPFTA (effective from 31 July 2009), s 9(1).
110.
See previous CPFTA (n 109), s 9(6); current CPFTA (n 89), s 9(14).
111.
See previous CPFTA (n 109), s 9(4).
112.
Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) (Amendment) Act 2016 (Singapore, Act 25 of 2016).
113.
See CPFTA (Amendment) Act 2016 (n 112), ss 4, 5 and 8.
114.
See Loo and Ong (2017).
115.
CPFTA (n 89), s 13(1).
116.
Cap 393, 1999 Rev Ed (Singapore).
117.
See n 98.
118.
Cap 394, 1999 Rev Ed (Singapore).
119.
Under HPA (n 98), s 2, the Act only applies to ‘regulated agreements’, i.e. hire-purchase or conditional sale agreements that relate to consumer goods not exceeding SGD20,000 (inclusive of goods and services tax) and motor vehicles not exceeding SGD55,000 (inclusive of goods and services tax, import and excise duty but exclusive of cost of certificate of entitlement for transactions on or after 15 July 1994). The Act does not apply to any ‘agreement in which the hirer is engaged in the trade or business of selling goods of the same nature or description as the goods comprised in the agreement.’
120.
SOGA (n 116), s 12; HPA (n 98), s 6; SUGA (n 118), s 2.
121.
SOGA (n 116), ss 13 & 15; HPA (n 98), ss 6A & 6C; SUGA (n 118), ss 8 & 10.
122.
SOGA (n 116), s 14(2); HPA (n 98), s 6B(2); SUGA (n 118), s 9(2).
123.
SOGA (n 116), s 14(3); HPA (n 98), s 6B(6); SUGA (n 118), s 9(4).
124.
SUGA (n 118), s 7.
125.
For example, in the SOGA, s 12 merely states that ‘In a contract of sale … there is an implied condition on the part of the seller that in the case of a sale he has a right to sell the goods …’ Compared to the wording of SOGA s 14(2) which states that ‘Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied … are of satisfactory quality.’ [emphasis mine].
126.
For example, the HPA was conceived as a consumer protection statute and likely applies only to B2C contracts given the limited scope of the regulated agreements.
127.
See n 122 and 123.
128.
Singapore UCTA (n 2), s 6(1)(a) & (2)(a) read with SOGA (n 116), s 55; UCTA s 6(1)(b) & (2)(b) read with HPA (n 98), s 6E; UCTA, s 7(2) & (3A) read with SUGA (n 118), s 11(1) & (2).
129.
UCTA (n 2), s 6(1)(a) read with SOGA (n 116), s 55; UCTA s 6(1)(b) read with HPA (n 98), s 6E; UCTA, s 7(3A) read with SUGA (n 118), s 11(1) & (2).
130.
UCTA (n 2), s 6(3) read with SOGA (n 116), s 55; UCTA s 6(3) read with HPA (n 98), s 6E; UCTA s 7(3) read with SUGA (n 118), s 11(1) & (2).
131.
UCTA (n 2), s 6(3) & 7(3) read with s 11(1) & (2), and Second Schedule.
132.
Pawnbrokers Act 2015 (No 2 of 2015).
133.
See n 98.
134.
Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed (Singapore).
135.
See, e.g., Singapore Parliamentary debates on the Hire-Purchase Bill when it was first introduced: Singapore, Parliamentary Debates, 1 August 1968, vol 27 at col 802 (Mr EW Barker).
136.
Singapore Pawnbrokers Rules (S142/2015).
137.
Pawnbrokers Act (n 132), s 49(2).
138.
Pawnbrokers Act (n 132), s 49(5).
139.
Pawnbrokers Act (n 132), s 50(1) read with the Second Schedule.
140.
Pawnbrokers Act (n 132), s 50(3).
141.
Pawnbrokers Act (n 132), s 69.
142.
See n 119 on definition of regulated agreements.
143.
HPA (n 98), s 3(3)(a) read with s 47(1)–(2); s 3(b).
144.
HPA (n 98), s 3(3)(c)–(e) read with the Second Schedule.
145.
HPA (n 98), s 5(1) read with s 47(3); s 5(2).
146.
HPA (n 98), s 5(3).
147.
HPA (n 98), s 29(1).
148.
HPA (n 98), s 29(2).
149.
Previous prescribed limits have been revoked: see Hire-Purchase (Terms Charges) (Revocation) Regulations 2004 (No S 679 of 2004) (Singapore).
150.
HPA (n 98), s 32(1).
151.
HPA (n 98), s 32(2).
152.
HPA (n 98), s 33.
153.
Moneylenders Act (n 134), s 20(1)(a).
154.
Moneylenders Rules 2009 (No S72/2009) Singapore, Rule 10 read with Form 1 in the Schedule.
155.
Moneylenders Rules (n 154), Rule 10A.
156.
Moneylenders Act (n 134), s 22(1).
157.
Moneylenders Act (n 134), s 22(2)(a).
158.
Moneylenders Rules (n 154), Rule 12(1) permits fees to be charged for:
1. a)
  late repayment of either the principal or interest that do not exceed SGD60 per month;
2. b)
  the grant of the loan that do not exceed 10% of the principal;
3. c)
  legal costs incurred for recovery of the loan as may be ordered by the court.
159.
Moneylenders Rules (n 154), Rule 12A.
160.
Moneylenders Rules (n 154), Rule 11 read with rule 12B.
161.
Moneylenders Rules (n 154), Rule 12(2) permits fees to be charged:
1. a)
  for every occasion of late payment or principal or interest
2. b)
  for each occasion of variation of the terms of the loan at the borrower’s request
3. c)
  for every occasion on which the borrower’s cheque is dishonoured by the bank when presented by the licensed moneylender;
4. d)
  for every unsuccessful payment via GIRO by the borrower;
5. e)
  for early redemption (whether full or partial), or for early termination of the loan contract (whether as a result of default or redemption or otherwise); and
6. f)
  for legal costs incurred for recovery of the loan as may be ordered by the court.
162.
Moneylenders Rules (n 154), Rule 12B.
163.
Moneylenders Rules (n 154), Rule 19(1).
164.
Moneylenders Rules (n 154), rule 20(1).
165.
Moneylenders Act (n 134), s 23(1)–(2).
166.
Moneylenders Act (n 134), s 23(3)(b).
167.
See, e.g., UCTA (n 2), where terms that exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence are prohibited (s 2(1)) while terms that exclude or restrict negligence liability for other loss or damage may be allowed if they satisfy the requirement of reasonableness (s 2(2)).
168.
UCTA (n 2), s 11(2) and Schedule 2, guidelines (a)–(c).
169.
UCTA (n 2), s 3.
170.
UCTA (n 2), s 1(3) provides for the regulating sections to apply only to ‘business liability’.
171.
UCTA (n 2), s 3(1).
172.
UCTA (n 2), s 2 regulates clauses that exclude or restrict negligence liability without differentiating between B2C or B2B contracts and without making any reference to standard form contracts.
173.
See n 129–131 and discussion in accompanying text. UCTA (n 2), ss 6 and 7 also regulate terms that exclude or restrict liability for breach of terms implied by the common law in sale or supply of goods contracts not governed by the SOGA, HPA and SUGA.
174.
See UCTA (n 2), s 4 which subjects the clause to the test of reasonableness.
175.
See n 172.
176.
See UCTA (n 2), s 3(1).
177.
See n 128 and accompanying text.
178.
UCTA (n 2), s 1(2) and First Schedule ss 1(a)–(e).
179.
UCTA (n 2), s 26.
180.
UCTA (n 2), s 1(2) and First Schedule ss 2–3.
181.
UCTA (n 2), s 1(2) and First Schedule s 4.
182.
UCTA (n 2), s 27(1).
183.
SOGA (n 116), s 3(2).
184.
Bus, taxi and train fares are regulated by the Public Transport Council through price caps set using a fare adjustment formula: see Public Transport Council Act (Cap 259B, 2012 Rev Ed), s 4(1); see also Phang (2013).
185.
Prices, tariffs, charges for postal services are determined and approved by the Info-communications Media Development Authority that has been appointed as the Postal Authority: see Postal Services Act (Cap 237A, 2000 Rev Ed), ss 3(1) and 3A(1)(g); and Postal Competition Code 2017, para 4, on Duty of Dominant Licensees to provide basic letter services on just, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
186.
Water prices are set by the Public Utilities Board: see Public Utilities Act (Cap 261, 2002 Rev Ed), s 20.
187.
See https://www.ema.gov.sg/Electricity_Consumers.aspx; see also Electricity Act (Cap 89A, 2002 Rev Ed), s 22.
188.
Telecommunications Act (Cap 323, 2000 Rev Ed), s 26(1) and Code of Practice for Competition in the Provision of Telecommunication Services 2012 (Telecom Code of Practice); Info-communications Media Development Authority Act (No 22 of 2016) (IMDA), s 61(1) read with Media Development Authority of Singapore Act—Code of Practice for Market Conduct (S148/2010) (Media Market Conduct Code). The Telecommunications Act provides the Info-Communications Media Development Authority with powers that include the power to issue directions and codes of practices: see IMDA s 100(a). The Media Market Conduct Code that was issued under the now repealed Media Development Authority of Singapore Act remains in force and is deemed to have been issued by Info-Communications Media Development Authority: see IMDA s 90.
189.
See Telecommunications Act (n 188), s 26(1); IMDA (n 188), s 61(9).
190.
See Telecom Code of Practice (n 188), para 1.3; Media Market Conduct Code (n 188), para 1.3.
191.
See Telecommunications Act (n 188), s 8 read with Telecom Code of Practice (n 188), paras 11.4.4–11.4.5; IMDA (n 188), s 66 read with Media Market Conduct Code (n 188), para 10.6.5.
192.
Media Market Conduct Code (n 188), para 3.2B.
193.
Media Market Conduct Code (n 188), para 3.4.2.
194.
Media Market Conduct Code (n 188), para 3.5.
195.
Media Market Conduct Code (n 188), para 3.5A.
196.
Media Market Conduct Code (n 188), para 3.5B.
197.
Telecom Code of Practice (n 188), para 3.2.3.
198.
Advisory Guidelines on Contract Period and Early Termination Charges for Telecommunication Services Offered to End Users at https://www.imda.gov.sg/~/media/imda/files/regulation%20licensing%20and%20consultations/codes%20of%20practice%20and%20guidelines/11%20cpetcg.pdf?la=en (last accessed 5 July 2019).
199.
Telecom Code of Practice (n 188), para 3.2.8.
200.
Telecom Code of Practice (n 188), para 3.2.9.
201.
Which had only been applied to control the prices of rice and pigs, see Singapore, Parliamentary Debates, 19 November 1997, vol 67 at col 1889 (Mr Lee Yock Suan).
202.
Singapore, Parliamentary Debates, 9 May 2000, vol 72 at col 148 (Mr Lee Hsien Loong).
203.
See n 149. See also Singapore, Parliamentary Debates, 21 September 2004, vol. 78 at col 706 (Mr Lim Hng Kiang).
204.
HPA (n 98), s 3(1) read with Schedule 2.
205.
Moneylenders Act (n 134), s 19(1).
206.
Moneylenders Act (n 134), s 19(2).
207.
Moneylender Rules (n 154), Rule 8.
208.
Media Market Conduct Code (n 188), para 1.51.
209.
Telecom Code of Practice (n 188), paras 1.61–1.62.
210.
Media Market Conduct Code (n 188), para 3.2A.
211.
Media Market Conduct Code (n 188), para 3.2A(a).
212.
Media Market Conduct Code (n 188), para 3.2D.
213.
Media Market Conduct Code (n 188), para 3.2D(a).
214.
Media Market Conduct Code (n 188), para 3.2D(b).
215.
Media Market Conduct Code (n 188), para 3.4.1.
216.
Media Market Conduct Code (n 188), para 3.5C.
217.
Telecom Code of Practice (n 188), para 3.2.2.
218.
Telecom Code of Practice (n 188), para 3.2.2.
219.
Telecom Code of Practice (n 188), para 3.3.
220.
Telecom Code of Practice (n 188), paras 3.3.1–3.3.7.
221.
Singapore Insurance Act (Cap142, 2002 Rev Ed), s 35P(1).
222.
Insurance Act (n 221), s 35P(2A).
223.
Disclosure and Advisory Process Requirements for Accident and Health Insurance Products, MAS 120 dated 30 January 2004 (last revised 30 October 2015) (MAS Notice 120) para 15.
224.
MAS Notice 120 (n 223), para 17(c).
225.
MAS Notice 120 (n 223), para 17(d)–(e).
226.
MAS Notice 120 (n 223), para 17(f).
227.
MAS Notice 120 (n 223), para 17(g)–(h).
228.
MAS Notice 120 (n 223), para 18.
229.
MAS Notice 120 (n 223), para 52.
230.
MAS Notice 120 (n 223), para 51 read with the Insurance Act (n 221), s 55(2).
231.
See https://www.moneysense.gov.sg/articles/2018/10/buying-direct-purchase-insurance (last accessed 5 July 2019).
232.
See http://www.comparefirst.sg/wap/webAggregatorEvent.action (last accessed 5 July 2019).
233.
MAS Annual Report for 2014–2015 on Financial Advisory Industry Review, at pp. 48–49, at https://www.mas.gov.sg/annual_reports/annual20142015/Annual%20Report.pdf (last accessed 5 July 2019).
234.
See ‘Letter to Forum: Response to Concerns about Interest Rates and Bank Charges’ 20 May 1998 at https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/media-releases/1998/response-to-concerns-about-interest-rates-and-bank-charges-20-may-1998 (last accessed 5 July 2019).
235.
See, e.g., ‘Response to “Hidden charges in credit card transactions”—ST Forum, 15 May 2014’ at https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/letters-to-editor/2014/response-to-hidden-charges-in-credit-card-transactions (last accessed 5 July 2019).
236.
See https://www.abs.org.sg/consumer-banking/consumers/rates-charges (last accessed 5 July 2019), FAQ no 6.
237.
Marissa Lee, Sunday Times pp 29–30, ‘Banks improve transparency of credit card charges’ 26 October 2014 at http://www.moneysense.gov.sg/~/media/Moneysense/News%20and%20Events/Media%20Articles/Sunday%20Times/Banks%20improve%20transparency%20of%20credit%20card%20charges%20the%20sunday%20times.pdf (last accessed 14 September 2018). The website has since been revamped.
238.
ABS Code of Practice for Banks—Credit Cards at https://www.abs.org.sg/docs/library/codeofbankingpractice_creditcards.pdf (last accessed 5 July 2019), para 2(a).
239.
ABS Code of Advertising Practice for Banks (ABS Advertising Code) at https://www.abs.org.sg/docs/library/code-of-advertising-practice-for-banks_june2010.pdf (last accessed 5 July 2019), para 6.
240.
ABS Advertising Code (n 239), para 7.
241.
ABS Code of Consumer Banking Practice (ABS Consumer Code) at https://abs.org.sg/docs/library/code-of-consumer-banking-practice.pdf (last accessed 5 July 2019).
242.
ABS Code of Banking Practice for Small Businesses (ABS Small Business Code) at https://www.abs.org.sg/docs/library/codeofbankingpractice_smallbiz.pdf (last accessed 5 July 2019).
243.
ABS Consumer Code (n 241), paras 11(a)(ii), (c)(ii) & 12(d).
244.
ABS Consumer Code (n 241), para 11(b)(ii).
245.
ABS Consumer Code (n 241), para 13.
246.
ABS Small Business Code (n 242), para 11(a).
247.
ABS Small Business Code (n 242), para 12(a).
248.
3^rd Edn, February 2008.
249.
SCAP (n 248), p. 5, para 1.2.
250.
SCAP (n 248), p. 8, para 1.8.
251.
SCAP (n 248), p. 11, para 5.1(c).
252.
SCAP (n 248), p. 12, para 5.1(d).
253.
SCAP (n 248), p. 16, para 5.3.
254.
SCAP (n 248), p. 17, para 7.1.
255.
SCAP (n 248), p. 5, para 4.1.
256.
SCAP (n 248), p. 5, para 4.1.
257.
SCAP (n 248), p. 5, para 4.2.
258.
See, e.g., iMoney Group (at http://www.imoney-group.com/ (last accessed 5 July 2019)) that provides comparison websites for financial and broadband services in South East Asia; EnjoyCompare (http://www.enjoycompare.com/ (last accessed 5 July 2019)) that provides a comparison website for financial and travel related products and services; PricePanda (http://www.pricepanda.com.sg (last accessed 5 July 2019)) that provides a price comparison website for latest gadgets and other products in South East Asia.
259.
See Consultation Paper on A Converged Competition Code for the Media and Telecommunication Markets 20 February 2019, at https://www.imda.gov.sg/-/media/imda/files/regulation-licensing-and-consultations/consultations/open-for-public-comments/consultation-on-proposed-converged-competition-code/imda-public-consultation-on-proposed-converged-competition-code.pdf (last accessed 5 July 2019), para 6.31.

References

Goh Y, Tan P (2011) An empirical study on the development of Singapore law. Singapore Acad Law J 23:176
Google Scholar
Loo WL (2016) The application of the Morton Principles in Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King in Singapore Reconsidered. Aust J Asian Law 17(1):1–20, Article 4
Google Scholar
Loo WL, Ong EI (2017) The 2016 amendments to Singapore’s Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act – a missed opportunity. Univ Tasmania Law Rev 36(2):15–48
Google Scholar
Phang ABL (1990) The development of Singapore law. Butterworths, Singapore
Google Scholar
Phang ABL (ed) (2012) The law of contract in Singapore. Academy Publishing, Singapore
Google Scholar
Phang SY (2013) Affordable fares, sustainable public transport. The Fare Review Mechanism Committee Report, pp 1–86, Research Collection School of Economics. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soe_research/2012
Smith SA (2005) Atiyah’s introduction to the law of contract, 6th edn. Oxford University Press
Google Scholar
Turnbull CM (2009) A history of modern Singapore, 1819–2005, 3rd edn. National University of Singapore Press, Singapore
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Singapore Management University, School of Law, Singapore, Singapore
Wee Ling Loo

Authors

Wee Ling Loo
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wee Ling Loo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Yeşim M. Atamer
Faculty of Law, Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
Yeşim M. Atamer
Faculty of Law, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
Pascal Pichonnaz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Loo, W.L. (2020). Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts in Singapore. In: Atamer, Y.M., Pichonnaz, P. (eds) Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 36. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23057-9_22

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23057-9_22
Published: 20 November 2019
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23056-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23057-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics