Korean Couple Bounce Cheque in $64K Rip-Off

CEOCambodiaNews · Post by **CEOCambodiaNews** » Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:41 pm

Cambodia News (Phnom Penh): On August 15, 2021, a Korean woman, CHAE HWA JUNG, the chairman of the H & K Partners Co, Ltd was detained and accused of defrauding a fellow Korean, KIM GIL DONG, of US$64,000.
The woman's company, H & K Partners Co, Ltd, bought raw materials to produce doors, windows, mirrors from the victim, but her husband, KIM YOUNG EUN, (not yet in custody), only paid 36,000USD and promised to pay off the rest later. After several promises to pay later, finally on August 15, Kim Young Eun issued a 64,000USD cheque payable to the victim.

However, when the victim went to cash the cheque, there was no cash in the account, so he was not paid. He then lodged a complaint with the authorities for fraud. The investigation is on-going, and the husband has yet to be arrested.

John Bingham · Post by **John Bingham** » Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:47 pm

Who the hell would trust a $64,000 cheque?

Doc67 · Post by **Doc67** » Wed Aug 18, 2021 8:44 am

John Bingham wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 11:47 pm Who the hell would trust a $64,000 cheque?

A desperate creditor that was already $64k down on the deal.

When you have been chasing your outstanding invoice for months and eventually extract a cheque, you assume (hope) it wont bounce.

The real question is who would extend $64,000 credit on a $100,000 transaction?

armchairlawyer · Post by **armchairlawyer** » Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:19 am

Doc67 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 8:44 am
The real question is who would extend $64,000 credit on a $100,000 transaction?

Yep, that's the 64,000 dollar question all right.
If the seller was well advised, she would have had a Romalpa clause in the sales contract. That would mean she is still the owner of the goods and can repossess them. Standard clause in all sales of goods contracts. Comes in handy a lot.

Doc67 · Post by **Doc67** » Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:40 am

armchairlawyer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:19 am
Doc67 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 8:44 am
The real question is who would extend $64,000 credit on a $100,000 transaction?
Yep, that's the 64,000 dollar question all right.
If the seller was well advised, she would have had a Romalpa clause in the sales contract. That would mean she is still the owner of the goods and can repossess them. Standard clause in all sales of goods contracts. Comes in handy a lot.

Retention of title clauses are ok when the product in question is uniquely identifiable. A car, for example, is unique and identifiable on the invoice to which the RoT applies. e'g' it's number plate. You walk up and drive it away if they don't pay.

Problems arise when you are supplying multiple identical products which are not uniquely identifiable. For example, 20 litre buckets of white paint, x 20 every month. Unless you mark them all with a unique number, you can't prove that stock of white paint is definitely the ones in your unpaid invoice. They can say they are old stock and already paid for; prove otherwise!

There is of course the thorny issue of going to premises and actually doing the repossession, which is easier said then done.

This case in question is for raw materials, which already may have been fabricated into the finished article. You can't repossess a wooden door just because it is covered with the aforementioned (unpaid) white paint.

armchairlawyer · Post by **armchairlawyer** » Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:51 am

Doc67 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:40 am Retention of title clauses are ok when the product in question is uniquely identifiable. A car, for example, is unique and identifiable on the invoice to which the RoT applies. e'g' it's number plate. You walk up and drive it away if they don't pay.

Problems arise when you are supplying multiple identical products which are not uniquely identifiable. For example, 20 litre buckets of white paint, x 20 every month. Unless you mark them all with a unique number, you can't prove that stock of white paint is definitely the ones in your unpaid invoice. They can say they are old stock and already paid for; prove otherwise!

There is of course the thorny issue of going to premises and actually doing the repossession, which is easier said then done.

This case in question is for raw materials, which already may have been fabricated into the finished article. You can't repossess a wooden door just because it is covered with the aforementioned (unpaid) white paint.

You raise a fine point of law here Doc. Yes, unpaid for items that have been irrerievably mixed with other items may not be repossessed. In this case the supply was said to be of "raw materials to produce doors, windows, mirrors".
I doubt they supplied the sand etc to make windows and mirrors from scratch. Even so, if they supplied ALL of the materials, then the finished item may be seized. But it would need to be all.
Oh, s0d it, just go round there with a gun.

Doc67 · Post by **Doc67** » Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:12 am

armchairlawyer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:51 am
Doc67 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:40 am Retention of title clauses are ok when the product in question is uniquely identifiable. A car, for example, is unique and identifiable on the invoice to which the RoT applies. e'g' it's number plate. You walk up and drive it away if they don't pay.

Problems arise when you are supplying multiple identical products which are not uniquely identifiable. For example, 20 litre buckets of white paint, x 20 every month. Unless you mark them all with a unique number, you can't prove that stock of white paint is definitely the ones in your unpaid invoice. They can say they are old stock and already paid for; prove otherwise!

There is of course the thorny issue of going to premises and actually doing the repossession, which is easier said then done.

This case in question is for raw materials, which already may have been fabricated into the finished article. You can't repossess a wooden door just because it is covered with the aforementioned (unpaid) white paint.
You raise a fine point of law here Doc. Yes, unpaid for items that have been irrerievably mixed with other items may not be repossessed. In this case the supply was said to be of "raw materials to produce doors, windows, mirrors".
I doubt they supplied the sand etc to make windows and mirrors from scratch. Even so, if they supplied ALL of the materials, then the finished item may be seized. But it would need to be all.
Oh, s0d it, just go round there with a gun.

What about the debtors fabrication costs and resultant added value? You final position for a remedy for breach of contract should put you in the position you would of been in, had performance occurred. Not a better one. We've done the work, we've added value, we are entitle to be paid. The contract is silent on the issue so, quantum meruit, dear boy

This would be my starting point in the dispute.

I had an RoT in my contracts a tried to collect 4 sets of 18' alloys for a BMW from a local customer. About £1000 outstanding for over 3 months.

I paid a visit, I saw the boxes, I knew they were mine and said "I'll just take them back". The shop owner said he had already paid for those ones (course of previous dealings) and he had sold the ones he still owed for because they were painted with the wrong shade of silver paint (it's a thing, trust me). He claimed he traded them to someone else. They hadn't paid him, so he hasn't paid me!

After some heated discussion along the lines of 'bullshit', I was threatened with a large tyre spanner and told to fuck off.

As I said, repossession is easier said than done.

armchairlawyer · Post by **armchairlawyer** » Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:35 am

Doc67 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:12 am
What about the debtors fabrication costs and resultant added value? You final position for a remedy for breach of contract should put you in the position you would of been in, had performance occurred. Not a better one. We've done the work, we've added value, we are entitle to be paid. The contract is silent on the issue so, quantum meruit, dear boy
This would be my starting point in the dispute.

I had an RoT in my contracts a tried to collect 4 sets of 18' alloys for a BMW from a local customer. About £1000 outstanding for over 3 months.

I paid a visit, I saw the boxes, I knew they were mine and said "I'll just take them back". The shop owner said he had already paid for those ones (course of previous dealings) and he had sold the ones he still owed for because they were painted with the wrong shade of silver paint (it's a thing, trust me). He claimed he traded them to someone else. They hadn't paid him, so he hasn't paid me!

After some heated discussion along the lines of 'bullshit', I was threatened with a large tyre spanner and told to fuck off.

As I said, repossession is easier said than done.

It's not a breach of contract claim, it's a title claim. That's why the clause is so popular, it works in insolvency situations when a contract claim would get you nothing.
In your case, if your buyer was telling the truth then you did not have a Romalpa claim (but you still had a breach of contract claim). Now there is an extension to the Romalpa clause that seeks to claim the proceeds of sale but this part is much more problematic.

armchairlawyer · Post by **armchairlawyer** » Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:41 am

Doc67 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:12 am
After some heated discussion along the lines of 'bullshit', I was threatened with a large tyre spanner and told to fuck off.

As I said, repossession is easier said than done.

Sounds like he would have been up for a deep dive discussion on the finer points of law re the proceeds of sale extension to a Rmalpa clause.

Bluenose · Post by **Bluenose** » Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:40 am

armchairlawyer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:19 am
Doc67 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 8:44 am
The real question is who would extend $64,000 credit on a $100,000 transaction?
Yep, that's the 64,000 dollar question all right.
If the seller was well advised, she would have had a Romalpa clause in the sales contract. That would mean she is still the owner of the goods and can repossess them. Standard clause in all sales of goods contracts. Comes in handy a lot.

Assuming there was actually any kind of contract...

Korean Couple Bounce Cheque in $64K Rip-Off

Korean Couple Bounce Cheque in $64K Rip-Off

Re: Korean Couple Bounce Cheque in $64K Rip-Off

Re: Korean Couple Bounce Cheque in $64K Rip-Off

Re: Korean Couple Bounce Cheque in $64K Rip-Off

Re: Korean Couple Bounce Cheque in $64K Rip-Off

Re: Korean Couple Bounce Cheque in $64K Rip-Off

Re: Korean Couple Bounce Cheque in $64K Rip-Off

Re: Korean Couple Bounce Cheque in $64K Rip-Off

Re: Korean Couple Bounce Cheque in $64K Rip-Off

Re: Korean Couple Bounce Cheque in $64K Rip-Off

Who is online

Register/Login to CEO with your Social Media Account: