ABSTRACT The Global Financial Crisis of 2008 (GFC) drew attention to the importance of customer protection in financial services contracts. In Singapore, customers who lost money in the GFC have not been very successful in suing financial institutions under the common law. This is due, in part, to tightly drafted contracts and clauses designed to protect the interests of financial institutions, such as non-reliance clauses, which might also affect rights in tort and equity. The principle of freedom of contract means that there is limited policing of contractual clauses by the courts, the chief control in Singapore being the test of reasonableness under the Unfair Contract Terms Act. Post-GFC, customers have been given enhanced statutory rights to sue financial institutions for damages under the existing Financial Advisers Act, as well as private law rights of action under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, which had previously not applied to financial transactions. This article examines the strength of the customer’s legal position in a claim against a financial institution under common law and statute, and assesses the extent to which the new statutory rights potentially improve the customer’s position.

中文翻译：

---

新加坡金融服务合同中的客户索赔：通过法定保护加强普通法权利

摘要 2008 年全球金融危机 (GFC) 引起了人们对金融服务合同中客户保护重要性的关注。在新加坡，在全球金融危机中赔钱的客户在根据普通法起诉金融机构方面并不是很成功。这在一定程度上是由于旨在保护金融机构利益的严格起草的合同和条款，例如非依赖条款，这也可能影响侵权和衡平法的权利。合同自由原则意味着法院对合同条款的监管有限，新加坡的主要控制是根据《不公平合同条款法》进行合理性测试。全球金融危机后，根据现行《财务顾问法》，客户被赋予了更高的法定权利，可以起诉金融机构要求损害赔偿，以及《消费者保护（公平交易）法》规定的私法诉讼权利，该法以前不适用于金融交易。本文研究了客户在根据普通法和法规向金融机构提出索赔时的法律地位的强度，并评估了新的法定权利可能在多大程度上改善客户的地位。