As what someone pointed out in another thread, most PIs get from only a few wholesale importers, so if MM can block those importers, then most will kena squeezed.

GR told me that they import themselves directly from a dealer in jp who de-registers a new car in jp for sale as jdm to GR. As far as Maz jp is concerned, they've sold the car to the jp dealer, and after that the jp dealer exports the car to sg, and the sg gov considers it a new car cos it was de-regged within a stipulated max period of time. Maz jp has no control over that.

I'm speculating, but I dun think MM sg has any control over Maz jp, and that they apply pressure to local wholesaler only. My guess is that MMsg also uses them, and since MMsg is a major client, the wholesalesrs would listen to MMsg and stop supplying local PIs. Remember, MMsg is not a subsidiary of MMjp, only an official authorised dealer. I don't see how they could exert such an influence on MMjp, who only care about how many cars they sell, not who sells them. If the statistic that MMsg only sells 25% of all RX8s in sg is correct, why would MMjp voluntarily curtail their own profits?

Logically, I don't think there could be a law that forces MMjp's hand. A law is either there, or it isn't. If PIs have been happily sellling up till now, it implies that there isn't such a law. If the only difference between now and then is MMsg complaining to jp (which they have been doing repeatedly since long ago anyway), the only logical possiblity (other than economic pressure) is that MMsg can change laws. Not possible rite? Thus, I conclude that MMsg has merely applied economic pressure to wholesalers in sg, which would be the extent of their influence.

Sigh, I just wish someone here knew someone in mgt position in Hiroshima.

 

gd explaination. thx.

seems like those PIs are just finding excuses to drag the delivery date.

 

I am not giving a biased opinion here, But the PI that actually involves rx8dorifto really must have *****. With problems faced from MM singapore and japan. They still take your downpayment and promise you a WHITE, 6MT, JDM Spec and Within 6 Months. Just go around asking who wants to indent a 6MT JDM. NO ONE will actually want to indent this model now. 6AT yes... 4AT ready stock... I even heard that 6ATs have ready stock also through a few sources. With all the commotion going on. We must understand the basis of Indented cars. Its not like getting a vios. Indent sure come in. Because it is a mass produced model. 6MTs are not just off the factory. I even spoken to a few sources. Indented cars are the most troublesome. Not only now is your PI facing problems on restriction by MM Singapore. It is a car that will be manufactured once an order is placed. Not ready made there just waiting to be shipped. I hope all forumers get their facts right now before trying to flame a PI. Mine is based on actual facts that actually occured. This thread is just a thread for my personal encounter with the PI, I seriously hope that people do not use this to defame other PIs. Especially those that is ignorant to happenings in the car industry. My 2 cents worth.

 

Seeing what some PIs have done to some members here, we already know how big their ***** can get.. not just big, bulletproof oso.

My one is indented 6MT JDM type S stormy bloo wif beige interior leh... like svper sed, is order orredy then manufacture, except that i tink it is the jp retailer that order from jp Maz, not GR. Can or cannot get? Will noe the answer in 1 mths time.

New 6MT must indent no matter what, min 3 mths wait, whether MM or PI. Fastest is get 2nd hand.

 

u r in a dangerous situation man. once your COE expires they can come up with execuses to make it look like its your fault and then you lose the 10k or force you to buy another car.

 

Normally dealers require a deposit is for the COE, in case some chao kar customer book car liao, got COE, and last minute run away. The Dealer die lor. Bid COE, COE officially belong to customer but Dealer paid for it. Anyway....Bidding of COE is like that... It go up and go down. Like playing stock market. And If anyone is not happy abt COE..... I hope you are not part of the 66.6%, else you are nuttin but a worthless person.

 

World of Wheels (S) Pte Ltd hereby give notice to all persons who have posted defamatory remarks against World of Wheels (S) Pte Ltd on this website and/or any other website that unless all such postings are removed within the next 24 hours, World of Wheels (S) Pte Ltd will construe their continued posting of the said defamatory remarks and their refusal to remove the same as an act of aggravated dafamation that warrants aggravated damages.

Take note that World of Wheels (S) Pte Ltd reserves their rights to take action with regards any defamatory statements made at any time on this website and/or any other website.

 

the thread is back folks. sorry for any delay-

World of Wheels-- You can feel free to come on this forum just like anyone else and express your opinion about this or any other subject within the forum guidelines. You can even respond to these allegations if you like and give your side of the story if you can get your lawyer away from the key board. However we will not censor peoples posts as long as they are within forum guidelines. Of course if you continue to threaten people on this forum that would be a bannable offense.

keep it clean fellas and have a nice day. hope this gets resolved quickly and to everyones satisfaction

 

Thank yu mods for being so fair

I would just like to say to WOW, 'I was scared shitless'....oops..wait...it is just constipation. do do doo do doo

 

With regards to World Of Wheels... All else aside... "Defamatory" means (used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign. This is provided by Princeton University. Often untrue... But in this case... only you and I know if it's true or not.

 

Svper is right. Defamatory only if provable false. Do I hear ex-Mr NKF saying 'dammit'?

Woooo.. this oughta be interesting..

+1

 

Without Prejudice

Svper,

regret to hear of your bad experienced (hope I'm not too late to share my opinion).

In the eye of law, your case can be viewed in 2 perspectives.

1. An outright consumer issue where you can deemed as a victim of a non credible company failing to deliver as promised.

or

2. A very clear Cheating case. Some of the members are right to say that the police will only record your statement and will not act on it as it is deemed as a commercial issue. But, what is more important, is for you to establish the "Intention to Cheat" for the authorities to act on the case and if I'm not wrong, this can be referred to Commercial Crime Div.

The company is trying to push the responsibilty to both yourself been to trusting and to the staff for such act. But, they fail to realised that the staff is under their employment and representing the company hence company should be responsible for all business and commercial practices extended by their employees.

Scenario A: Salesman collected any form of payment from customer and failed to put into company's record and at the same time used the monies for personal reason(s).

Question: Whom in this scenario should be responsible to the customer's transaction? Salesman or the Company???

Answer: You are dealing with the company and the salesman are seen here as a representative. If all documentation proof are in order, the company will have to be responsible for to the transaction regardless if the salesman present or not. The rest is up to the company to proceed with disciplinary action or to pursue the issue with legal actions against the employee.

Can you imagine??? If (A) company engaged 10 salesmen and allow all to practise such act and at the same time sharing the proceeds and push the responsibilty to the salemen. What would be demed as??? Cheating or mishandling or miscommunication?

Such act cannot be tolerated and should be referred to the authorities for good cause. You never know which saleman and/or company can duplicate such act and who knows if your friends or family members could be the next victim?

Regards

 

So does that mean I have the right to persue this matter of threatening by the company since wat have been said was not defamatory?

 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Let's not hide behind some legal jargon or the reservation to take action,

If you think that Svper or any of the members here have allegedly defamed your company in any way, let's hear your side of the story and clear your company's good name.

 

If they cannot explain their side of the story and only post such threats; this makes real bad PR.

 

i don't even think they even know what true public relations as a practice is.

in any case, 'world of wheels singapore' is now at #4 in google rankings - they're getting massive publicity - bad or otherwise, it's still publicity

 

whether the things said are defamatory or not is up to the courts to decide......it's just very sad that buying a dream car would end up like that.....

 

I wish there is a transparent system / guidelines from the government to keep the PIs under watch just like how MAS keeps a watchful eye on the insurance agents.

Maybe the government needs to dictate that in a car sales agreement, the company must put delivery date and course of action / compensation if delivery date is not met. Or they could make it complusory that car must clear customs before bidding for COE. Make it harder for bad PIs / ADs alike to cheat or screw their customers.

This industry's reputation is getting from bad to worse and we as consumers are suffering.

 

wah, "scared" man...

 

Without Prejudice

CoupeM,

in most cases, "Defame" means tarnishing the name or reputation of someone and/or an organisation on a bias, untrue, non-supported and groundless statements made on the said person and/or organisation and at the same token causing the discredibilty of that individual and/or organisation.

In such scenario, the planitiff (which is the party that initiates a legal action to claim loss and/or compensation) will need to gather all statement(s) made in the presence of any and/or a third party that supports his/her claims.

Remarks put up by WOW cannot be deemed as a "Threat" as it is for the purpose of protecting their reputation and we are not able to rule out the possibilties of a "Defamatory" situation here.

Reference to my earlier reply, as mentioned that Svper needs to gather all possible documents to prove their "Intention" and/or their action(s) as per said. These documents and including verbal agreements transpired between both parties will determine the conclusion.

2 typical scenario that can command an act on a non-supported claim that can potentially cause damage(s) and provided any such said person and/or organisation pursue with a leagal action:

1. If such untrue statements were not made in the presence of a third party that can potentially cost the reputation and/or credibility of the plaintiff, in such case it will therefore deemed as "No Case" or in a simple note, "words against words".
If the plaintiff still pursue with a legal action that gets nowhere and at the same time the court awarded the "rights" to the other party, then the said party can "counter claim" for cost and damage(s).

2. If all statement(s) made, in/not-in the presence of any third party are deemed to be the truth and supported with grounds and evidence both documented and/or verbal and/or in act......then, it will be really hideous and you can rest your case.

If Svper has the intention to go all the way, my suggestion is to get the authority or a legal council to look into the whole picture and advise.

Cheers

 

Ermmm Makimaki I'm guessing you are a lawyer by profession ah? My initial feel is that Svper dont have enough on paper. It is a lose lose if both parties use the court as their means. Svper in terms of end state, WOW in terms of the process. I suppose the bottomline lesson learnt when dealing with PIs is to leave nothing as in ZERO to chance and trust. Black and white with witnesses if possible.

 

au contraire, i believe sviper has signed statements from this jimmy ang on the receipt of funds for purposes other than for the effect of the sale transaction, not to mention multiple independent 3rd parties who were there when this matter transpired. while it's not watertight, he has good legal basis to support his claim(s).

 

makimaki..u lawyer ah? i read liao...head now spinning.

 

Bros,

me not lawyer la..........happen to know a little from my job profession as a consultant in the past.

CoupeM, apology for causing you a spinning head....any rubber burned??? ha ha ha.......

Just wanna share and hope to put such tormenting experience(s) away so that less people will be taken advantage.

I'm sure Svper do have some receipt(s) for those cheques issued. If so, it will be good enough to get to the bottom of things.

Hope my 2 cents helped.....

Any further legal or non-legal enquiry will be charged at a glass of teh tarik per question......Just kidding mates........!!!!!!

Cheers

 

Who is making defamatory remarks now? Someone indirectly called you a LIAR! What you gonna do about that?