引用第2樓posouth於2009-11-13 03:52發表的“”:
直覺分三部份睇, 第一係「想減肥但最後無效」, 呢樣睇contract上有冇寫明幾時幾耐保證減幾多, 冇列明的話, 冇得告。第二係「受傷」, 照睇應該同該店negligence有關, 如果Alice想告negligence, 就要證明causation(ie.傷患係直接由部機同錯誤操作做成), 證明damage suffered(ie.醫生證明受傷, 醫藥費單, 因傷告假等等)。店舖本身有duty of care去對待它們的客人, 而且用減肥機不算是危險一類活動(eg. bungee-jump), 所以我相信個句"Company shall not be responsible...."係法庭上, 唔會係有力的defense。
第三點係"without professional certificate", 多數呢個睇香港有冇減肥/美容行業的admin law或者行政機構(真係唔知....), 有的話, 多數由該方面處理, 唔一定經法庭去裁判。冇的話, 就冇得講, 即是呢一行冇乜監管。但當然如果合約上有寫明係有XXX專業證書的技師之類, 又另一個講法。
.......
| g3rMan | 2009-11-12 23:33 |
Law - Case Studycan anyone help me to answer the following case??? Alice read an advertisemnet of Super Slim Centre("the Centre") from a newspaper with the slogan, "Join us! We are the most effective weight-loss treatment centre in Hong Kong". Alice went to the Centre and a shopkeeper, Betty, told her that the Centre and the treatments are operated and managed by the medical professionals with practicing certificates. Betty also said that 100% of their customers at least lose 20 lbs. within five weeks. Alice was persuaded to pay $90,000 for the treatments and received a receipt which did not mention the successful rate but contained the clause "The Company shall not be responsible for any loss and/or damage to the customer from whatsoever cause arising". During the last treatment, Alice was injured by the weight-loss machine wrongfully operated by the beauty consultant. Besides, she did not lose any weight after the whole treatment in five weeks time. She was very angry and requested the Centre to compensate her injury and refund all money she paid but was refused. A week later Alice read the magazine and found out that the Centre was notorious and the treatment was merely operated by the beauty apprentices without any professional certificate. Advise Alice. |
|
,因為係unfair
