ripped off:$195 for 128mb CF

[pauly]

nah i bought it in funan last year when i went to sg and also i dont even know the retailer. guess what i was wearing a summer pants like a village boy and also i am using sgd not bnd and that makes a big diffrent. i only use bnd in sg if i want good service and always use sgd and wearing summer pants to shop and also waering slipper hahah thats true slipper.

 

[toasty]

The shop quoted a price. The buyer agreed to it. Was the buyer coerced into paying for it? No ... then you can't blame the shop as the buyer is at fault for not checking what is the market price. But woe to the shop for overcharging.

the buyer is coerced into paying for it. There is almost no way that a seller will be able to sell a 128MB CF for $195 without some form of coercion,

The good vendors give you the price and let you compare elsewhere, without pressure, examples: CP, AP, Parisilk (I don't hear this shop named so frequently on this forum). The ones who are trying to rip you off will use all kinds of psychology to not let you leave the shop without spending some money first, cuz if you see other prices, they know you won't come back.

The other day I was in a shop in peninsula. I was looking for a PT-015 underwater housing. The shop I was in was selling it for $328. It's going for about $280 in AP. After I asked the price and found it to be so high, I said "ok, thanks" and started to leave. The guy said "so you're not interested in the housing?" I said "no thanks, I've seen it cheaper elsewhere", then he said "how much cheaper?" I was reluctant to tell him, but he said "come on, you can tell me, no problem lah, how much cheaper?" So I said "less than $300". Then he goes "Oh ok, which shop was it?" And I said "I don't remember." but I was walking out the door already.

Somehow, it always bothers me when they ask me "so how much you want to spend", or "how much you want to pay for it?" Just gives me the feeling they want to cheat me.

 

[pauly]

thats what we call price war. if you dont bargain you will for sure got rip off

 

[eadwine]

it's De-luxe cameras #01-16/19
i managed to exchange the 128 one for a 256 mb at no extra charge. he still bullcrap me trying to tell me wat this 128 mb CF faster lar, wat speed wat speed lar. he wanted me to topup $60 for a 256 then he reduced the topup to $30.
I told him i will only topup $30 if he gives me a 512. then he said no way. i was sick of his "technical" bullcrap then i told him im no tourist n i'll walk if he gives me a 256 and if he makes life difficult for me i would get pple to come down every other hour and tell his customers about my "experience".
no defamation as this "experience" actually happened, biz law keke~.
then he lan lan say wat "u happy i happy everybody happy" somemore say if u wan 256 can, i give u slower card, i was like watever lar arse. In the end he gave me a 256 of the bloody SAME BRAND and MAKE but only this time round it's a 256.
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....waste my time dealing with these predators. im so pissed but at least not such a big loss. juz happy i scolded them for my mom.

That is the same shop that made me pay so much when i first got my sony f707. they charge me $180 for a battery. I went back with my friend and complained that sony was selling the batt at $80 and they sold it to me at 180. ridiculous. in the end couldnt do much, got like 5-6 filters from them.
From then on i learnt to scout around for the price of an item first before buying the item.

Take it as a lesson learnt. but i would advise u to go back to the shop for some kind of compensation. I do not think its right for stores like these to cheat people like that.

 

[Winston]

If he's got the proof to backup his claim, why not?

Truth is, there are unscrupulous shops out there that need to be black listed, similar to what the Singapore Tourism Board is doing. You don't name them, and they'll surely continue victimizing hapless consumers.

:Later,

The government has no right to interfere with the buying and selling price of the retailers.

The sellers can quote you any price they want, if you are agreeable you will pay.

Unless you can prove that you are tricked into buying it believeing it is a high speed when it's not or you were somehow forced into buying it.

If by selling an expensive price will be blacklisted then might as well lay down the rules that every shop in Singapore should sell at MSRP.

The blacklisted shops in STPB were blacklist for bad service not high prices.

Although we "feel" that Based on market value item A should be around $xxx to $yyy.
That does not mean that the seller has to follow.

Same goes to the 2nd hand items in Buy/Sell, if the seller pm-ed the buyer that he is selling a (for example) 50mm f/1.8 for $250.
If the buyer does not know the market price and agreed to pay, then only later he knows it is above the price first-hand.

legally he cannot sue the seller, since he agreed to buy it at that price.

Disgusting or not, that's the way the law sees it.
Which is why you should ask more than 1 shop to compare prices.

If the buyer has asked several shops in Peninsular, he/she will notice that the prices differ and will know the range of price that the item is going for.

 

[Winston]

A 128CF goes for around $60. Charging $195 is 3x that figure. Imagine you order a drink at the coffee shop and the shop wants to charge you $4 for that. You think that's right?

A coke costs $0.50 cents in NTUC, $1 in SLS's mama shop, $1.20 in foodcourt, $2 in BK, $8 in some disco and $10 in other discos.

My question is since they are all essential coke, they do not produce it. the drink formuala is exactly the same.

Maybe some places got ice some no, but ICE don't cost that much.

So do you sue the disco?

This coke example was brought up before in Straits Times, but the final answer is....

The government cannot tell retailers what price to sell their stuff, if you, the consumer feels the price is too high, you are free to shop else where.

 

[Pinoy]

The government has no right to interfere with the buying and selling price of the retailers.

The sellers can quote you any price they want, if you are agreeable you will pay.

Unless you can prove that you are tricked into buying it believeing it is a high speed when it's not or you were somehow forced into buying it.

If by selling an expensive price will be blacklisted then might as well lay down the rules that every shop in Singapore should sell at MSRP.

The blacklisted shops in STPB were blacklist for bad service not high prices.

Although we "feel" that Based on market value item A should be around $xxx to $yyy.
That does not mean that the seller has to follow.

Same goes to the 2nd hand items in Buy/Sell, if the seller pm-ed the buyer that he is selling a (for example) 50mm f/1.8 for $250.
If the buyer does not know the market price and agreed to pay, then only later he knows it is above the price first-hand.

legally he cannot sue the seller, since he agreed to buy it at that price.

Disgusting or not, that's the way the law sees it.
Which is why you should ask more than 1 shop to compare prices.

If the buyer has asked several shops in Peninsular, he/she will notice that the prices differ and will know the range of price that the item is going for.

Duh. I said "similar". If the STB can come up with a black list based on bad service, why not consumers like us? Anyway, IMHO, being tricked (if you don't like the term "cheated") into paying 3x more is part and parcel of bad service. I see nothing wrong in publishing the names of shops who trick people in paying more as long as sufficient proof is given.

IIRC, I have also read of cases like this being referred to the Small Claims Tribunal or at the very least CASE.

:Later,

 

[toasty]

A coke costs $0.50 cents in NTUC, $1 in SLS's mama shop, $1.20 in foodcourt, $2 in BK, $8 in some disco and $10 in other discos.

My question is since they are all essential coke, they do not produce it. the drink formuala is exactly the same.

Maybe some places got ice some no, but ICE don't cost that much.

So do you sue the disco?

This coke example was brought up before in Straits Times, but the final answer is....

The government cannot tell retailers what price to sell their stuff, if you, the consumer feels the price is too high, you are free to shop else where.

No one is talking about suing the shop, nor about the govt forcing them to sell at certain prices. We are just pointing out their bad practice and taking note so that we make sure we, or people we care about are not ripped off by these kinds of shops. No one wants to get ripped off. Sharing information (accurate information) is quite legitimate. People who pay $10 for a coke in a bar know they are paying a higher price and make that choice to do so, they think it is worth it, because of whatever other benefits of being in the bar may bring. They are not coerced by the bar-tender, nor are they making an uninformed decision. These vendors who try to sell at exorbitant prices are deliberately trying to keep their "customers" in the dark so that they would part with their cash without really knowing they are paying 3x the price elsewhere. If it was clear that they are charging 3x more than elsewhere, and everyone knows that they charge 3x the price, and the customer still wants to go there, then that's fine. The customer has every right. If they are working based on mis-information (japanese brand all priced higher lah!), and trying to coerce the customer into buying without knowing other prices, then that is being dishonest. They are misleading the customer on purpose. It's true the customer should do their own work, but not everybody knows the market price of every item they buy. These vendors take advantage of this and hook one every so often. In the long run, they should lose out, especially if we as consumers use resources like this forum to inform others. I think that's a good thing. Next time we as customers will make more informed decisions instead of uninformed ones. What's wrong with that?

 

[Winston]

No one is talking about suing the shop, nor about the govt forcing them to sell at certain prices. We are just pointing out their bad practice and taking note so that we make sure we, or people we care about are not ripped off by these kinds of shops. No one wants to get ripped off. Sharing information (accurate information) is quite legitimate. People who pay $10 for a coke in a bar know they are paying a higher price and make that choice to do so, they think it is worth it, because of whatever other benefits of being in the bar may bring. They are not coerced by the bar-tender, nor are they making an uninformed decision. These vendors who try to sell at exorbitant prices are deliberately trying to keep their "customers" in the dark so that they would part with their cash without really knowing they are paying 3x the price elsewhere. If it was clear that they are charging 3x more than elsewhere, and everyone knows that they charge 3x the price, and the customer still wants to go there, then that's fine. The customer has every right. If they are working based on mis-information (japanese brand all priced higher lah!), and trying to coerce the customer into buying without knowing other prices, then that is being dishonest. They are misleading the customer on purpose. It's true the customer should do their own work, but not everybody knows the market price of every item they buy. These vendors take advantage of this and hook one every so often. In the long run, they should lose out, especially if we as consumers use resources like this forum to inform others. I think that's a good thing. Next time we as customers will make more informed decisions instead of uninformed ones. What's wrong with that?

Yes, you have highlighted the key word. "dishonest"

In the thread starter, all the info given that the buyer paid $195 for a 128Mb CF.

The buyer's son, knowing it's a high price, feel it is a rip-off and proceed to demand a higher capacity card from the merchant.

There are no info, to suggest that the buyer (which is the mom) was mis-informed by the seller.
There was no mention that she was forced to accept the price.

If a customer had an unpleasant shopping experience at a shop.
He can post his experience with the shop, but not to the extend of insulting it and calling it names that will undermine the shop's name.

Maybe "I bought item A at $195 from a Shop "XYZ" in ABC Street, only to find out that a similar item was sold cheaper elsewhere. Next time I will learn my lesson to be careful"

the above statement informs the consumers about his experience with shop "XYZ" but did not insult the shop and it is up to the readers to determine if they want to shop there or not.

However statements like "XYZ shop is a cheat" or "XYZ shop is a scam" is not so "nice"

"If he makes life difficult for me i would get pple to come down every other hour and tell his customers about my "experience"
The above statement sounds like a treat that if the customer does not get his way, he will spread word around with the intention to cause the shop to lose business.

So sometimes, even if the intent is right, the way you do it, or the tone of the language used maybe wrong.

Dis-agreeing with the government is not wrong but cursing them and hurling insults at them is.
(Ever read the complain letters to certain shops/companies abt service or products in the Forum pages of straits times. the tone and language used is different)

 

[goering]

The government has no right to interfere with the buying and selling price of the retailers.

The sellers can quote you any price they want, if you are agreeable you will pay.

Unless you can prove that you are tricked into buying it believeing it is a high speed when it's not or you were somehow forced into buying it.

That is not entirely true. If the damage done is serious enough the govt will and should act. That is because as pointed out by someone, this kind of blatant overcharging is tantamount to cheating as the buyer is unaware of the market price. The STB while not exactly a govt body, has decided recently to blacklist several shops - due to complaints from tourists - and the bulk of the complaints are about overcharging. Overcharging is grounds enough for blacklisting.

Already quite a few members including myself have had bad experiences with that particular shop in question - De-luxe and I can bet that the overcharging in this case was blatant

Link: http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/ah/Qsingapore-tourism.RFnQ_DSH.html


STB said it has received more than 800 complaints from the eight million tourists who visited Singapore last year and, although the ratio is small, it was treating each complaint as "one case too many."

Since June this year, the board has sent letters to more than 50 retail establishments alleged to have engaged in unethical practices to inform them of possible blacklisting.

The first blacklist of errant retailers will be published in brochures given out to tourists starting next month as well as on the STB's website www. visitsingapore.com.

Most of the complaints involved overcharging, selling bogus brands or lying to customers about the products, an STB spokeswoman said. A high proportion of the complaints came from buyers of electronics goods.

"We are very committed to ensuring visitors have a memorable stay in Singapore and are serious about addressing the problem of errant retailers," said STB deputy chairman and chief executive Lim Neo Chian.

"Our reputation as a fun and friendly city-state is at stake if errant retailers are allowed to continue unethical retail practices causing grievance to visitors."

 

[blurblock]

I do not quite agree with Winston view. Although it is correct that a contract is sealed when the buyer quote a price and the seller agrees to it, they should have the ethic to at least put up a decent price.

For the case of an item priced at 5 - 10% higher then its competitor, it is quite a norm. For example Courts can be selling the same C5050 at 1299 while AP or CP might be selling at 1200, the price different is about 8%, which is acceptable as the price is still around that range.

However, in this case, the seller blantantly overcharge the buyer by at least 3 times the market price knowing the buyer has little or no knowledge of the market rate. That is not fair market adjustment by pure extortion if I should say so myself. This type of behaviour cannot and should not be condone. Although we could not really do anything to this shop as the contract is sealed between the buyer and the seller, we could at least inform the rest of potential buyer about the harzard of buying anything from such dishonest merchant. The shop should be taking the aftertaste of their dishonesty. They are making money by disrupting the good name of Singapore.

All buyers has the right to demand a fair price, it's our money afterall. It is the right of all buyers to be kept known of shops that are practising such despicable, low down tatics.

By the way, STB does take into consideration of blacklisting shop that blatantly overcharge by a ridiculous amount.

That's just my 2 cts.

 

[toasty]

There are no info, to suggest that the buyer (which is the mom) was mis-informed by the seller.
There was no mention that she was forced to accept the price.

I don't think the buyer was forced to accept the price, but wouldn't you say she tricked into accepting it? I can't imagine a situation where someone would pay $195 for a $65 item, with no other benefit (in your coke example for instance, there are benefits of drinking the coke in a disco over buying it from NTUC) . And we've all had experiences where the shops are trying to cheat us, whether by psychological pressure, or misinformation etc... These are not honest practices. I do believe the shop was not being honest in their dealings, and so I would rather not deal with them.

 

[phyla]

when you buy a coke in disco, the price is listed. Coke is, say 18 dollars per jug.
reason for so so expensive? Disco mar. You know, i know, everyone knows, plus the price is listed and it is general information. Plus end of the day the waiter won't tell u "Expensive? becoz this coke comes from alpines, and can circulate your blood speed for 10x faster, shiokk eh? cheaper coke can't do as much."

BUT, this is not the case in this thread. Is it not obvious?
I believe that most of us had gone through this stage, whereby we were told,"Aiyah.. This japanese brand hagiwara $XXXX is best price lar, outside sell how much how much more expensive ler, see you buy this camera, then cheap cheap sell u." or whatever.
Misleading it is., you know, i know, everyone knows.

So does that means that we have a right to voice out our experiance??
Or keep quiet until someone kena ripped off. Then we say "The Buyer and The seller agreed on the price, although 3x more, there is no case"?

 

[Shadus]

The shop quoted a price. The buyer agreed to it. Was the buyer coerced into paying for it? No ... then you can't blame the shop as the buyer is at fault for not checking what is the market price. But woe to the shop for overcharging.

Disagree!!!!

If this is true, let's say I've a "magic" stone. And someone is willing to pay me $10,000 for this "magic" stone (which incidentally, I happen to pick it up during my walk last week along changi beach).
Would this constitute willing seller willing buyer?
charging at 3x is bordering on the line of cheating. esp. when ur customer is not savvy about electronic stuff.

 

[Shadus]

A coke costs $0.50 cents in NTUC, $1 in SLS's mama shop, $1.20 in foodcourt, $2 in BK, $8 in some disco and $10 in other discos.

My question is since they are all essential coke, they do not produce it. the drink formuala is exactly the same.

Maybe some places got ice some no, but ICE don't cost that much.

So do you sue the disco?

This coke example was brought up before in Straits Times, but the final answer is....

The government cannot tell retailers what price to sell their stuff, if you, the consumer feels the price is too high, you are free to shop else where.

also disagree with this as its not the same comparison. disco, foodcourt, NTUC, mama shops are essentially different model of business. hence, customers get differentiation of products & services. In disco, u get to enjoy *free* music, see pretty gals etc. then of coz the coke is $8.

In the thread here, we're basically talking about similar business. Does the mentioned shop provide *extra* services worth 3x the market price?

 

[OzOn3]

Wha, everybody seems to be attacking Winston now.. hahaha

alright, let's all give him some love aiight. he did nothing wrong. All he did was to enlighten us on the law aspect of this issue..

Also, look at the tone and words that Winston chose to use, i think it's pretty neutral to me..

Alas, it's one of those bad shopping experience aye? I had my A70 "chopped" off by $80 extra, due to pressure.. That was a awhil ago though. Aahahah

 

[ed9119]

I would never send my mummy to a camera shop to buy camera equiptment for me (unless you already confirm with shop on price and just need an errand boy to go pay and pick up merchandise with instruction like "dont pay a cent more and anything else...call my handphone")

....that's just asking for trouble in the first place.

 

[AReality]

then, wat about compiling a list of experiences, good or bad, we had at shops?
Let it be purely factual & avoid calling names?

 

[e_liau]

Just wondering aloud, if she paid close to $200 for a 128MB card, how much more did she paid for the canon 300D? Hmm.. :think:

 

[Pinoy]

I would never send my mummy to a camera shop to buy camera equiptment for me (unless you already confirm with shop on price and just need an errand boy to go pay and pick up merchandise with instruction like "dont pay a cent more and anything else...call my handphone")

....that's just asking for trouble in the first place.

What if your mum decides to buy you a 10D as a surprise birthday gift? :sweatsm:

You sure would be happy. But at the same time, fuming mad once you realized she got ripped off. :sweat:

:Later,