CLARIFICATION AND DEMAND FOR ACTION FROM MR KL KANG (KLK) BY MR MICHAEL TAM (MT)- Own of SLR Accessory
1.0 Chronology of Events
1.1 On 19 Nov 2015 KLK brought in two Cameras kit and two flash to MT's shop located 91 Bencoolen Street #01-34 Sunshine Plaza Singapore 189652 and offered to sell to MT at around $500.00.
Both parties agreed that both cameras are SLR film Cameras with very low market value as well as very low demand too.
MT proposed only help KLK to offer to members of MT's company. KLK left the cameras and flashes in MT's shop with a receipt with bearing MT's signature and “DSLR Accessories” Co stamp.
KLK took personal MT's FaceBook (FB) details “Kengin Michael Tam” and he added MT to his friends list. KLK started to communicate with MT on private messages.
The first message was on 19 Nov 2015 5:12pm “Very nice photos Michael !! like them a lot. cheers” , then both parties chatted through messages on FB.
1.2 On 22 Nov 2015 and after 3 days checking with customers and market search, MT fedback to KLK that a few customers were interested in the camera flash and lens offering around $50-60 but there was no interest on the cameras.
KLK replied the offers were too low and that he will come to see MT the following day.
1.3 On 23 Nov 2015, KLK did not turn up as he had mentioned the day before.
1.4 On 24 Nov 2015, KLK came at around 1300 hrs and mentioned again to MT that the prices were too low. KLK said would rather give his camera gear to his relative and he took them all back. KLK also offered to MT $20.00 service fee. Initially MT refused but eventually accepted KLK's offer.
At 1330 hrs KLK emailed to MT saying that the cameras were different from what he left in MT's store. MT double-checked carefully on phone with KLK that the items KLK took and the items listed on the receipt MT gave KLK on 19 Nov 2015 , were the same ones that KLK accepted back. KLK concurred with MT as such.
At 1648 hrs KLK emailed to MT stating that “ Please come back to me for $400 by this Sunday. I check the EOS 5 lens - it is mouldy.”
KLK sent another message later that “I chance my mind about being nice, Just spoke to my lawyer about the photos, you call me by tomorrow lunch time 12pm and pay $400 (I had wanted to sell for more than $500 initially) or I am making a police report after that.”
KLK followed with a phone call to MT to mention about the message but MT refused to accept the $400 KLK wanted MT to buy KLK's cameras & flashes.
At 1743 hrs KLK made an online police report accusing MT of inappropriate behaviour.
1.4 On 30 Nov 2015 KLK posted a message to ClubSnap with a copy of police report, online complaint letter to ACRA as well as a company search on "SLR Accessory Pte Ltd" including photo of MT's company operating hours on FB and the internet . In the messages KLK also publicised MT's full name, Identity Card number as well as MT's home address.
KLK titled “Beware of Scam : SLR Accessory” as the heading on his online messages.
1.5 On 1 Dec 2015 one of MT's customer received the post and SMSed MT about it.
1.6 On 2 Dec 2015 MT went to Police Headquarters at Cantonment to check KLK's on-line Police filing. The filing was handled by Mdm Amanda Lee Wei Ann (A/20151124/7007). The case is currently under investigation.
Footnote: MT has been operating his business under “DSLR Accessories”, registration number “53195172C” since 2011 in Singapore without any complaints to CASE or the Police prior to this incident.
2.0 Clarification
2.1 KLK was a walk-in customer with no previous visits to MT's shop. MT did not invite KLK in order to buy nor promote the sale of KLK's cameras and flashes. Nor did MY request for a service fee without any successful sales. As a business understanding, MT proposed to put up KLK's gear on suitable websites with a payable commission upon successful sales to MT by KLK.
In good faith, MT took in KLK's gear and acknowledged by giving KLK a receipt.
The exchange was based on a mutual agreement.
2.2 On the same day KLK commented that he and his wife liked several of MT's photos. The interchange between KLK and MT was cordial.
MT noted that KLK was exceedingly pleasant until then.
2.3 However the exchanges were less amicable when MT informed that there were only prices offered for KLK's gear was as expectedly low. There appeared to be a change of KLK's attitude despite him acknowledging in one of his other separate posts that his gear could only command a low price and unlikely to match the $400 he asked for.
2.4 In an unusually short period of 3 days, KLK returned to claim back his gear which was returned after both parties agreed to the exchange. KLK claimed that he preferred to give his gear to his relative. KLK took his gear back willingly.
2.3 Within hours KLK on the same day, KLK emailed to MT claiming that one of the lenses were mouldy. KLK demanded that MT pay him $400 in exchange for his gear.
It is highly unlikely that KLK's claim was valid that the lens became mouldy in the 3 days in MT's shop. Lenses and similar articles take much longer periods to turn mouldy and usually in warm and mouldy environments. KLK's gear was kept in MT's shop at all times under similar conditions for all of MT's merchandise which is air-conditioned being in a modern shopping commercial complex. If KLK's claim is true, many of MT's merchandise of similar nature will be mouldy as they have been in the same shop for many months. In short, if KLK's lens was indeed mouldy, the condition existed prior to MT storing it in his shop.
2.4 After initial accusations that the gear KLK took back from MT's shop was not the same ones KLK left with MT, KLK concurred with MT that they were indeed his. Except for KLK's claim later that one of his lenses were mouldy as elaborated in item 2.3.
2.5 Within a week, KLK made an online police report and posted negative publicity on a public domain used by many photography professionals and amateurs. These actions were taken by KLK after MT steadfastly refused to buy over KLK's gear at $400.00.
3.0 Demand For Action By MT
3.1 That KLK remove immediately his postings from ClubSnap and all other websites accusing MT of 'scamming' KLK.
3.2 That KLK stop his demands that MT purchase his gear that he handed MT for 3 days.
3.3 That KLK retract his accusation that his lens or any of his gear became mouldy in MT's store.
3.4 That KLK withdraw his on-line police report accusing MT of cheating him.
3.5 That KLK stops any further attacks on MT's business and personal integrity.
3.6 That KLK withdraws and refrains from publishing in any form or matter details of MT's business and private information.
4.0 Offer Of Resolution After Demand For Action Is Met
4.1 In return for the complete list of demands fully acted by KLK as per items 3.1 to 3.6 above-mentioned, MT will consider this incident as an unfortunate and uncalled for series of events.
4.2 Also MT will not make any police report or take any legal action against KLK for wilfully planning and forcing MT to purchase KLK's gear at any price. Nor post any rebuttal on ClubSnap and other websites so that KLK's personal reputation is untainted by this series of events.
4.3 Finally MT will continue to treat KLK as any other individual who has his or her place in the photographic community without any prejudice nor fear.
