Let me declare that I am not one of those who have signed an agreement in an en-bloc sale and have now decided to renege on the agreement.

I disagree with the writer that once someone has signed a contract, he should not be allowed to use the law to attempt to reverse it under any circumstances. Sometimes, people sign contracts because of coercion or undue pressure, or because of misrepresentation.

Let me give an example. There have been many people, including highly-educated ones, who have signed up timeshare schemes because of high-pressure sale tactics or misrepresentation about the terms of these schemes. Does the writer believe that those who have signed these contracts under such situations have no right to try to reverse these contracts? So, organisations like Case should not waste their time helping these people?

There was a presentation by an en-bloc sales committee chairman who, at a meeting of owners, said that signing a collective sales agreement is to go on a 'fishing expedition'. If I do this, I can choose to let the fish back into the water if I catch it. I don't have to eat it.

The analogy with a fishing expedition may well be a throwaway comment but can clearly be misleading. When signatures are gathered after such a presentation, would everyone really know the implications of what they were signing?

Some may not know that the sales committee did not have to go back and check with the owners whether they want the fish. And lawyers acting for the sales committee often have no real interest in explaining the full implications because they are acting for those wanting to sell. So, what is an elderly couple who do not know much about the legal implications to do when pushed to sign? Engage their own lawyer for advice?

Not everyone who has signed the agreement may be trying to renege because the property market has gone north. When we talk about integrity of the seller, how about the integrity of those on the other side? If a sales committee did not act with integrity, why should those who have signed not have any recourse?

There is no need to feel sorry about the 'time, money and tears' shed by the 'aggrieved buyers'. They have far more resources to fight a protracted legal case than those who object to the sale because our legal system is not designed with a view to levelling the playing field between the 'Davids' and the 'Goliaths'. And most of the tears will be shed by those who are forced out of their homes.

The writer mentioned about teaching integrity and 'keeping one's word' to our children. I would also suggest teaching things like being willing to stand up for one's rights, being more sensitive to our environment by not supporting the demolition of perfectly good buildings and, most importantly, not doing things just for the sake of money.

Those who want to sell in an en-bloc sale want the money. I respect that, for some, their circumstances may have changed and they need the money.

However, the minority owners who do not want to sell because they do not put money above everything else should not be portrayed as the selfish ones. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened in some cases.

Mak Yuen Teen