AUTOMOBILE DEALER PURSUED BY DEBTORS CLARIFIES THEIR SIDE OF THE STORY

The car dealership at the center of the storm over a car which a buyer claims has not been transferred to his name despite forking out over $40K worth of cash for it has turned up to clarify their version of events.

Who would you believe now?

Dear Editor,

Our customer, Mr Jerry Yee had purchased a car from us sometime in Jan/Feb. However, the car was badly damaged due to his negligence and had to be towed back for a major engine overhaul as well as major repairs done to the gearbox and other parts of the car. Unlike what he said that we had sold him a “lemon” nor is it like what he said that he returned us for repairs of the air-con & car key only and we did not return him the car for several months.

All these correspondence that proof that he lied, we are still keeping it. He has also breached the contract by cancelling the deal after he damaged the car as he claimed the car was inauspicious. Mr Yee pushed all responsibilty to us by insisting the car was a “lemon”. However, we also have sms proof that Mr Yee have sent the car to his own workshop for a thorough check before he made payment for the car to ensure that it was not a defective car. He did not heed our advice to stop driving the car when there was 1st signs of a problem (which was likely to be coolant leak) and continued driving for days until smoke came out of the car… Mr Yee had also admitted that the car was sent to his friend’s workshop before he bought the car but claimed that they did not do any checks which was illogical to us.

In all aspects, we have done our due dilligence to accomodate to his requests and helped him when he was in need. The debt collectors that he hired had prior threatened us with the media should we not give in to their demands. However, we did not expect the story to be so distorted.

I am able to meet up to show my evidences but I am not keen to publish my side of the story online as I do not want to start an unnecessary argument online with Mr Yee. My evidences are only to show that what Mr Yee said is untrue and thus I do not want to see any publications on this matter especially bearing my company’s name or address as well as mine &/or my employees’. I also do not consent photos of such as well to be published as well..

Check Also

Voyeur Colin Chua Yi Jin’s Father is SPH’s Chief Financial Officer Chua Hwee Song?!

Colin Chua Yi Jin, who filmed voyeuristic videos of 12 women, has the gag on …