Hard selling and aggressive sales tactics can feel annoying but not necessarily unlawful when the salesperson observes consumer rights and avoids what is considered unfair practices under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 in Singapore. The line can be thin, and there could be situations when salespersons accidentally or intentionally overstep their boundaries and press the customer into a deal while violating their consumer rights.
In a recent case, the Small Claims Tribunal ordered the seller to refund the claimant for the transaction, considering it an unfair practice. Below, we explore this case and explain when consumers can raise a complaint for high-pressure sales tactics.
Key Takeaways
- Ordinary “hard sell” practices are not necessarily unlawful, but when the seller exerts undue pressure or influence on the consumer, such acts may constitute unfair trading practices under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 (CPFTA).
- “No refund” and waiver clauses in a seller’s agreement cannot override consumer rights under the CPFTA.
- The CPFTA allows consumers to bring actions in respect of unfair practices by sellers.
- Businesses may lose unfair practice claims if they cannot produce first-hand evidence, such as CCTV footage or staff testimony, to rebut a consumer’s account of events.
Background of the Case
In JFM v JKW [2026] SGSCT 25, reviewed by the Small Claims Tribunal, the dispute involved a sale of beauty and wellness products between a claimant (“Mr C”), a 32-year-old Master’s student on a scholarship, purchasing from a respondent (“RPL”) during two transactions. The first transaction included a purchase of peeling gel for $210, which came with a complimentary facial. When Mr C came in to redeem the complimentary product, he entered into a second transaction for a package of facials and products costing him $3,000, which he later claimed constituted an unfair trading practice.
What the Complainant Said
According to Mr C, the salesperson first quoted $10,000 as the price for the second transaction and then progressively decreased it to $3,000 by saying that they would apply a “special” staff voucher and price benefit exclusively for Mr C if he decided on the spot. Mr C further said that the salesperson initially offered a $500-per-month instalment plan, but later insisted on full upfront payment, grounding it on shortage of product and saying that Mr C wouldn’t receive any product if he did not pay the balance immediately.
In his complaint, Mr C also claimed that the salesperson applied a product to his face and was told that he would then need a “special” remover to take the product off. Lastly, according to Mr. C, the salesperson discouraged him from consulting with his wife and told him to make his own decision without succumbing to family pressure.
What the Defendant Said
After Mr C gave an account of the events, the Magistrate asked the supplier to refute it or at least cast substantial doubt on it. However, the supplier turned out unable to do so, saying that the salesperson who handled the transaction cannot speak to it as she no longer works for the company and couldn’t provide any CCTV recording. While the respondent denied any unfair practices by saying that its sales methods are standard retail practice and relied on its Service Agreement that suggests that payment is not refundable, it was not able to answer the specifics of Mr C’s sworn statements.
What Is an Unfair Practice Under the CPFTA?
In turn, the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 provides a clear definition of unfair practices by a supplier in relation to a consumer transaction. The consumer law in Singapore also provides a consumer with a right to sue the supplier who has entered a transaction involving an unfair practice.
What Is Considered an Unfair Practice in Singapore?
The CPFTA law makes it an unfair practice for a supplier to do, say, or omit to do or say anything if, as a result, a consumer might reasonably be deceived or misled. Other instances of unfair practice defined by the consumer protection law in Singapore include making a false claim or taking advantage of a consumer if a supplier knows or should reasonably know that a consumer cannot protect their own interests, or is not reasonably able to understand the character, nature, language, or effect of the transaction or any related matter.
Consumer’s Right to Sue for Unfair Practice
According to the CPFTA, a consumer who has entered a consumer transaction involving an unfair practice may commence an action against the supplier in a court of competent jurisdiction. The law further provides that this right does not apply if the amount of the claim exceeds $30,000 or any other amount that the Minister may prescribe by order in the Gazette.
Can “No Refund” Clauses Override the CPFTA?
The consumer protection law in Singapore explicitly says that the provisions of the CPFTA prevail despite any agreement to the contrary. Furthermore, any waiver of any right, benefit, or protection available under the consumer protection law is also void.
In its decision, the tribunal held that CPFTA protections cannot be contracted out. Accordingly, the Magistrate held that “no refund” and waiver clauses in the supplier Service Agreement do not, by themselves, defeat a proven unfair practice.
The Tribunal Findings and Ruling
During the case review, the Tribunal assessed the two transactions separately. On the $210 transaction, the Magistrate found Mr C’s evidence to be too brief, providing very little concrete detail about what was said or done at the point of the sale. Eventually, the Tribunal was not satisfied that a specific unfair practice was proven in relation to the first transaction and therefore dismissed that claim.
For the $3,000 transaction, the Magistrate found Mr C’s description of that interaction to be cogent, detailed and internally consistent. The Tribunal took into account Mr C’s personal circumstances at the time, including being a scholarship student, for whom $3,000 represented essentially a month of his stipend with a wife on an irregular freelance income. Since the RPL was unable to rebut or cast doubt on the claimant’s version of the event, the Tribunal found the circumstances surrounding the transaction went beyond ordinary “hard sell”.
The Magistrate further held that the elements of the transaction involved
- manufactured urgency,
- a shift from agreed instalment structure to a demand for full payment,
- the use of product on the face of the complainant with a suggestion that only the supplier’s special remover could assist it,
- discouragement from contacting a close family member in circumstances where the $3,000 represented a month’s stipend essentially.
Accordingly, the Magistrate concluded that the defendant exerted undue pressure on Mr C amounting to unfair practice within the meaning of paragraph 14 of the Second Schedule of the CPFTA. Since the products included in the $3,000 transaction remained unopened and unused and Mr C confirmed his willingness to return them, the Tribunal allowed the claim, ordering the respondent to issue a full refund.
What This Decision Means for the Public and Businesses
For consumers, this decision is a reminder that persistent or aggressive sales tactics are not automatically unlawful. However, when sellers use tactics involving manufactured urgency, broken payment terms, or discouragement from seeking advice separately or combined, these may amount to unfair trading practices under the CPFTA.
For businesses, this ruling confirms that signed agreements and “no refund” clauses do not automatically protect a business if an unfair practice is later proven. Consumers who feel pressured into a purchase may still have legal recourse, even after signing a waiver.
At IRB Law, our legal team assists both consumers and businesses involved in cases claiming unfair trading practices to protect their rights in Singapore. If you are interested in more information on consumer protection in Singapore or facing an unfair trading practices claim, please don’t hesitate to contact our civil litigation team.
FAQs
What Consumer Remedies Are Available Under the CPFTA?
Consumers who believe that they entered a transaction involving an unfair practice may bring a claim against the supplier in a court of competent jurisdiction, including the Small Claims Tribunal. Available relief includes monetary compensation and, where appropriate, the unwinding of the transaction.
When Can I Not Return a Product in Singapore?
Generally, in Singapore, businesses are not required to accept a return or offer a refund simply because a customer changed their mind, unless they include these provisions in their return policy. Many companies in Singapore use “no refund” clauses that are generally enforceable in ordinary transactions. However, “no refund” clauses cannot override consumer rights under the CPFTA.
What Should I Do if I Feel Victim of Deceptive Sales Practices in Singapore?
You should keep any documentation related to the transaction, including receipts, contracts, and messages exchanged with the seller. You should first contact the business directly to seek a resolution before pursuing a claim in court. If the seller refuses to meet your demands, you may bring your claim before the Small Claims Tribunal for amounts up to $20,000, or up to $30,000 if both parties sign a Memorandum of Consent, or to the State Courts. In either case, seeking legal advice can help substantiate your claim and pursue compensation.
