Sticky situation: Boy, 8, uses mum's phone to order over $5,400 worth of lollipops
Twenty-two cases of the candy totalling 50,600 lollies were delivered to Ms Holly LaFavers' house in the south-eastern state of Kentucky. PHOTO: HOLLY LAFAVERS/FACEBOOK
Sticky situation: Boy, 8, uses mum's phone to order over $5,400 worth of lollipops
A woman in the United States found herself in a sticky situation when her son used her phone to buy nearly 70,000 lollipops online.
Ms Holly LaFavers' eight-year-old son Liam placed a bulk order for 30 boxes of Dum-Dum lollipops costing US$4,200 (S$5,460) via her Amazon account, while playing with her phone.
She discovered this on May 5 when she checked her bank account and 'immediately panicked' when she saw that her account was in the red.
Ms LaFavers said her son, whom she adopted when he was 2½ years old, has foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which results in learning, thinking, physical and behavioural issues.
According to the Mayo Clinic, the disorder is caused by mothers who drank alcohol during pregnancy.
Ms LaFavers told the Associated Press: 'He told me that he wanted to have a carnival, and he was ordering the Dum-Dums as prizes for his carnival. He was being friendly, he was being kind to his friends.'
She tried to cancel the order, but it was too late.
By then, Amazon had already delivered 22 cases of the candy, containing 50,600 lollies, to her home in the south-eastern state of Kentucky .
'Liam went outside to ride his scooter and started screaming, 'My suckers are here,'' she told American morning television programme Good Morning America.
'There were just 22 boxes of suckers on our front porch,' she said, adding that she did not receive any alerts that the consignment had been delivered
Another eight boxes of the candy with 18,400 lollies arrived two hours later, which Ms LaFavers was able to reject.
She said she faced difficulties trying to get a refund from Amazon , so she turned to Facebook for help.
'Hi everyone! Liam ordered 30 cases of Dum-Dums and Amazon will not let me return them.
'Sale: $130 box. Still sealed,' she wrote in a post.
Almost immediately, family, friends, neighbours and even strangers offered help and within two hours, every box was purchased.
Amazon eventually agreed to give her a full refund, Ms LaFavers said.
'After a long day of working with the bank and talking to a few news stations, Amazon called, and they are refunding my money!!!' she said in an updated Facebook post later on that day.
'Thank you to everyone that offered to buy a box to help us. I will be happy to get you what you 'ordered' or donate them to a charity of your choice.'
In a statement to People magazine, Amazon confirmed that it had issued a full refund.
'We're glad we were able to work directly with this customer to turn a sticky situation into something sweet,' the company said.
Separately, Mr Kirk Vashaw, CEO of Dum Dums, told People: 'We are excited to hear about such an enthusiastic Dum-Dums fan. We love that so many people jumped in to offer to buy the extra cases and that the family was ultimately reimbursed. We'd also like to offer Liam a job interview in the next 10 to 15 years.'
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
9 hours ago
- Business Times
Court partially allows Goh Jin Hian's appeal, finds he did not breach duty by not probing IPP's red flags
[SINGAPORE] The Appellate Division of the High Court has partially allowed an appeal by Goh Jin Hian against having to pay damages for breaching his duty of care as a then-director of the insolvent marine fuel supplier, Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP). The ruling on Thursday (Jun 5) said that Goh had breached his duty of care as a result of not being aware of IPP's cargo trading business – not because he had failed to open a probe into red flags surrounding the company. The justices presiding were Tay Yong Kwang, Woo Bih Li and Kannan Ramesh. Goh was also found not to have breached his duty to act in the best interests of IPP's creditors regarding drawdowns on bank facilities in relation to fraudulent cargo trades. This follows his being found liable in February 2024 for breaching of his director's duties, statutory duties and the losses suffered by the firm, which came to US$146 million plus interest. The liquidators of IPP had sued Dr Goh, the son of former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, to recover US$156 million in losses, accusing him of 'sleepwalking through his time as a director' and failing to discover and stop the drawdowns in trade financing between June 2019 and July 2019, said to have been funding non-existent or sham transactions. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up In his grounds of decision released last July, High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah said Dr Goh had not taken 'reasonable steps', such as by making the necessary inquiries, when red flags surrounding the company arose. Goh was also unaware of the existence of IPP's cargo trading business, despite being a director of the company, and therefore did not know this business was a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by IPP, said the justice. Following the appeal, the judgement has been set aside, and Dr Goh no longer has to pay damages to IPP. While the Appellate Division agreed with the previous judgement that Goh had breached his duty of care by being unaware of IPP's cargo trading business, it found that the three red flags raised in the previous judgement were not 'red flags that would have put Dr Goh on a train of inquiry leading to the fraud in the cargo trading business being uncovered'. One such red flag was an audit confirmation request relating to amounts of receivables due to IPP from customer Mercuria Energy Trading, which Goh signed and was sent to Mercuria on Feb 7, 2018. The sum due was US$132 million. While Justice Aedit said Goh should have made inquiries upon receiving the audit confirmation request, the Appellate Division said the fact that this sum was requested by Mercuria was 'not, in and of itself, enough to put him on inquiry'. This was because Mercuria was a big company and that the size of the receivable could have been explained by IPP's sizeable trading volume, amounting to about US$1 billion, with it. Two other issues that IPP's liquidators had called red flags – the suspension of IPP's bunker craft operator licence in June 2019 and three confirmations of indebtedness signed by Dr Goh in July 2019 – were also found not to be red flags by the Court of Appeal. In the case of the suspension, 'even if Dr Goh had made the inquiries... it is unclear if he would have uncovered fraud in the cargo trading business, even if he had learned that IPP was carrying on such business'. The judges were not persuaded that the suspension of the licence was a red flag. As for the confirmation of indebtedness, there was no assertion in the confirmations that the debts were for the cargo trading business, and they were thus not considered red flags. The Appellate Division therefore departed from Justice Aedit's finding that Dr Goh breached the care duty regarding the red flags. It also disagreed with Justice Aedit that Dr Goh did not breach his duty to act in the best interests of the respondent's creditors on the drawdowns for fraudulent cargo trades made on IPP's bank facilities. It found that IPP bears the legal burden of proving that the fraud would have been detected, and that the resulting loss would have been averted had Dr Goh known that IPP was undertaking the cargo trading business, but failed to discharge this burden. Dr Goh was represented by TSMP Law Corporation, led by joint managing partner Thio Shen Yi; IPP's liquidators were represented by LVM Law Chambers, led by managing director Lok Vi Ming. After the appeal, Thio said the decision has practical implications for all directors, as the Court of Appeal has clarified that it 'cannot be part of a director's duty of supervision and oversight to pick up fraud unless there are tell-tale warning signs'. 'Directors owe fiduciary obligations and the duty of care to the company, but the Appeals Court has crucially recognised the practical and commercial limits to their ability to scrutinise for and detect fraud, especially deep-seated fraud,' he added.
Business Times
9 hours ago
- Business Times
Appeals Court partially allows Goh Jin Hian's appeal, finds he did not breach duty by not probing IPP's red flags
[SINGAPORE] The Court of Appeal has partially allowed an appeal by Goh Jin Hian against having to pay damages for breaching his duty of care as a then-director of the insolvent marine fuel supplier, Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP). The court ruled on Thursday (Jun 5) that Goh had breached his duty of care as a result of not being aware of IPP's cargo trading business – not because he had failed to open a probe into red flags surrounding the company. The justices presiding were Tay Yong Kwang, Woo Bih Li and Kannan Ramesh. Goh was also found not to have breached his duty to act in the best interests of IPP's creditors regarding drawdowns on bank facilities in relation to fraudulent cargo trades. This follows his being found liable in February 2024 for breaching of his director's duties, statutory duties and the losses suffered by the firm, which came to US$146 million plus interest. The liquidators of IPP had sued Dr Goh, the son of former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, to recover US$156 million in losses, accusing him of 'sleepwalking through his time as a director' and failing to discover and stop the drawdowns in trade financing between June 2019 and July 2019, said to have been funding non-existent or sham transactions. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up In his grounds of decision released last July, High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah said Dr Goh had not taken 'reasonable steps', such as by making the necessary inquiries, when red flags surrounding the company arose. Goh was also unaware of the existence of IPP's cargo trading business, despite being a director of the company, and therefore did not know this business was a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by IPP, said the justice. Following the appeal, the judgement has been set aside, and Dr Goh no longer has to pay damages to IPP. While the Court of Appeal agreed with the previous judgement that Goh had breached his duty of care by being unaware of IPP's cargo trading business, it found that the three red flags raised in the previous judgement were not 'red flags that would have put Dr Goh on a train of inquiry leading to the fraud in the cargo trading business being uncovered'. One such red flag was an audit confirmation request relating to amounts of receivables due to IPP from customer Mercuria Energy Trading, which Goh signed and was sent to Mercuria on Feb 7, 2018. The sum due was US$132 million. While Justice Aedit said Goh should have made inquiries upon receiving the audit confirmation request, the Court of Appeal said the fact that this sum was requested by Mercuria was 'not, in and of itself, enough to put him on inquiry'. This was because Mercuria was a big company and that the size of the receivable could have been explained by IPP's sizeable trading volume, amounting to about US$1 billion, with it. Two other issues that IPP's liquidators had called red flags – the suspension of IPP's bunker craft operator licence in June 2019 and three confirmations of indebtedness signed by Dr Goh in July 2019 – were also found not to be red flags by the Court of Appeal. In the case of the suspension, 'even if Dr Goh had made the inquiries... it is unclear if he would have uncovered fraud in the cargo trading business, even if he had learned that IPP was carrying on such business'. The judges were not persuaded that the suspension of the licence was a red flag. As for the confirmation of indebtedness, there was no assertion in the confirmations that the debts were for the cargo trading business, and they were thus not considered red flags. The Court of Appeal therefore departed from Justice Aedit's finding that Dr Goh breached the care duty regarding the red flags. The Court of Appeal also disagreed with Justice Aedit that Dr Goh did not breach his duty to act in the best interests of the respondent's creditors on the drawdowns for fraudulent cargo trades made on IPP's bank facilities. It found that IPP bears the legal burden of proving that the fraud would have been detected, and that the resulting loss would have been averted had Dr Goh known that IPP was undertaking the cargo trading business, but failed to discharge this burden. Dr Goh was represented by TSMP Law Corporation, led by joint managing partner Thio Shen Yi; IPP's liquidators were represented by LVM Law Chambers, led by managing director Lok Vi Ming. After the appeal, Thio said the decision has practical implications for all directors, as the Court of Appeal has clarified that it 'cannot be part of a director's duty of supervision and oversight to pick up fraud unless there are tell-tale warning signs'. 'Directors owe fiduciary obligations and the duty of care to the company, but the Appeals Court has crucially recognised the practical and commercial limits to their ability to scrutinise for and detect fraud, especially deep-seated fraud,' he added.
AsiaOne
9 hours ago
- AsiaOne
Ex-IPP director Goh Jin Hian wins appeal, court says firm failed to prove his breach caused losses , Singapore News
SINGAPORE — The Court of Appeal has found Goh Jin Hian, a former director of insolvent marine fuel supplier Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP), is not liable to pay US$146 million (S$187 million) plus interest in compensation for losses suffered by the firm. In overturning a lower court ruling that found Goh was not entitled to relief from liability, the Appellate division of the High Court clarified that "it cannot be part of a director's duty of supervision and oversight to pick up fraud unless there are tell-tale warning signs. "A director may be a sentinel, but he is not a forensics investigator or a sleuth, unless there are signs that would put him on inquiry," according to a 63-page ruling on June 5 delivered by Justice Kannan Ramesh, a Judge of the Appellate division. "While we agree with the (High Court) Judge that Dr Goh had breached the care duty by reason of his ignorance of the cargo trading business, IPP has failed to show... that the breach caused the loss in question," the Appellate court said. Goh, the son of former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, served as a director of IPP from June 28, 2011, to August 2019. Senior Counsel Thio Shen Yi of TSMP Law Corp, who represented Goh, noted that the latest decision is an important clarification on the law of the duties of directors. "Dr Goh has always maintained that his conduct caused no avoidable loss to IPP, and we believe he has been vindicated. This is an important decision that has practical implications for all directors," said Thio, who acted for Goh with Nanthini Vijayakumar, a partner of TSMP Law. Deloitte & Touche, IPP's judicial managers turned liquidators, had sued Goh to recover US$156 million in losses, accusing him of "sleepwalking through his time as a director", and failing to discover and stop drawdowns in trade financing between June 2019 and July 2019 to fund alleged non-existent or sham transactions. High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah had found that Goh is not entitled to relief from liability because of "the egregiousness of his breaches of duty, chief among which was his ignorance as to IPP's cargo trading business" — a "vehicle of fraud" that had "disastrous consequences" for the company. Goh had appealed the ruling in February 2024 that found him liable for breach of director's duties and statutory duties and losses suffered by IPP. In allowing Goh's appeal, the Appellate court found that the three purported red flags that IPP relied on "were not in fact red flags that would have put Dr Goh on a train of inquiry leading to the fraud in the cargo trading business being uncovered and the loss thereby averted." The Appellate court concluded that this was a case of "deep-seated fraud." Although Dr Goh was not aware of the cargo trading business, the court ruled that "it does not follow that if Dr Goh had been aware of the cargo trading business, he would have discovered the fraud and thereby put a stop to it". "There is no suggestion by IPP there were any, apart from the 'red flags', which we have concluded were not in fact red flags. Further, there was no allegation that the auditor and IPP's financial manager alerted Dr Goh of any issues with the accounts, or that the monthly management accounts and financial statements suggested anything untoward. "Thus, there is nothing to the point that if Dr Goh had been aware of the cargo trading business, he would have exercised oversight in a manner which would have picked up the fraud and averted the loss." the Appellate court wrote. Thio said: "Directors owe fiduciary obligations and duties of care to a company but the Appeals Court has crucially recognised the practical and commercial limits to their ability to scrutinise for and detect fraud, especially deep-seated fraud. This acknowledges the complex commercial realities that directors often operate in." [[nid:702062]] This article was first published in The Straits Times. Permission required for reproduction.
