In support of the latter it might be argued that unlike a posting, e-mail communication takes place in a relatively short time frame. If the offeree knows that the offeror does not intend the terms of the offer to be those that the natural meaning of the words would suggest, he cannot, by purporting to accept the offer, bind the offeror to a contract: Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3All ER 566; Smith v Hughes (1871) LR6 QB 597. He placed his first order for 50 units at about 2.58am, and his second order for another 50 units at 3.22am, again through the HP website. However, if the defendant did not have stock, it would immediately call the supplier and procure the products for the end-user. He seemed to suggest that in a number of cases going as far back as, He somewhat muddied the authority of his observations by apparently accepting in, 126 The Australian courts appear to have relied on the views of Lord DenningMR in, 127 The attempt to conflate the concept of common law mistake and the equitable jurisdiction over mistake is understandable but highly controversial. Pages 74 Ratings 100% (5) 5 out of 5 people found this document helpful; They have taken into account both the English and Australian authorities in distilling the jurisprudence in this area. The sixth plaintiff is precluded from asserting his ignorance. The court found that parties when . Defence counsel indicated that he wanted to regularise the position on the agency relationship between third and sixth plaintiffs which had been thrashed out during cross-examination; he also wished to plead additional particulars of the respective plaintiffs actual knowledge of or belief in a mistake having occurred, which had emerged both before and during the hearing. Ltd.1 has the makings of a student's classic for several reasons: it presents a textbook example of offer and acceptance; it is set in the context of internet contracting; it involves the use in evidence of email, instantaneous messaging, and short messaging system (SMS); and it . Decisions cannot be reconciled and expressions, terminology and phraseology in different decisions mean different things to different courts and even judges within the same judicial systems. Normally, however, the task involves no more than an objective analysis of the words used by the parties. A prospective purchaser is entitled to rely on the terms of the web advertisement. The affidavits did not add anything new. Despite the general views expressed in. The first issue dealt with references made by the plaintiffs to certain embargoed material. ThompsonJ of the Ontario High Court applied Hartog v Colin & Shields ([115] supra) and held that the parties were not ad idem and found that no contract had been formed. There must be consensus ad idem. Their conduct in pursuing their claims cannot by any stretch of the imagination be characterised as having the slightest colour of being legitimate regardless of whether the subjective or objective theories are applied and whether common law or equity is applied in adjudicating this matter. A contract is normally concluded when an offer made by one party (the offeror) is accepted by the party to whom the offer has been made (the offeree). It was held that the contract between the parties was void. What is urged is that, owing to a common error as to some fundamental fact, the agreement is robbed of all efficacy. Case law chwee kin keong v digilandmallcom pte ltd. School Nanyang Technological University; Course Title ACC 1301; Uploaded By saint_huimin. Chwee Kin Keong vs Digilandmall.com - Free download as Powerpoint Presentation (.ppt / .pptx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or view presentation slides online. The present article analyses the many important issues that are raised by what is probably the first case on Internet mistake - the Singapore High Court decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594. I granted leave to both parties to file applications to amend the pleadings. China-Singapore "One Belt One Road" International Business Cases Digest Part 1 -"" () 457-463 (2020, published by the Singapore and People's Republic of China Supreme Courts . The defendant was entitled to stake its entire defence on the basis of common law, though it would have been prudent ex abundanti cautela to have asserted the equitable position in the alternative. Furthermore, they relied on a passage from, At the trial leave to amend particulars will as a rule be refused (, 84 It is axiomatic that a court will generally be cautious if not reluctant to effect any amendments once the hearing has commenced; even more so once the evidential phase of the proceedings has been completed. - See also Balfour v. Balfour (1919). Though the six plaintiffs accounted for only 18 of these purchase orders, they figure prominently among the 11 individuals who ordered more than 50 laser printers. His revelation that he did not know if this is an error or whether HP will honour this purchase, not to mention the articulation of his hope that by the time you see this email, the price is still at S$66.00, 27 The first plaintiff obviously took the view that the advertisement should be acted upon urgently. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version. I reject this. Homestead Assets Sdn Bhd v. Contramec . Altogether he sought to purchase 760 units, the largest number of orders placed by anyone between 8 and 13January 2003. 33 After his first order, the second plaintiff contacted the fourth and fifth plaintiffs informing them about the laser printers. Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532 Omnium D'Enterprises v . Nor could he satisfactorily explain why he initially made the Internet searches to ensure the offer was genuine. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. Plaintiffs counsel indicated that they wanted to further particularise the sixth plaintiffs purchase orders. He was amicus curiae to the Court of Appeal of Singapore in the case of Chwee Kin Keong & Ors v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, the leading Singapore case on unilateral mistake in the digital environment. Theoretically the supply of information is limitless. There are two types of orders relevant: market orders and limit orders. Taking into account the nature of the claims, the conduct of these proceedings by the plaintiffs and how the case for the plaintiffs unravelled, it would not, all things considered, be appropriate to interfere with the normal order of costs which ought to follow the result. CHWEE KIN KEONG v DIGILANDMALL.COM Pte Ltd (2005) SGCA 2. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:47 wasnt greedy before I tok to u. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:47 yeah.. S$1 mio then no need to work liao?? The first, second and third plaintiffs have been friends for a long time and are bound by common business interests. LOW, Kelvin Fatt Kin. If coherence is to be restored to this area of our law, it can only be by declaring that there is no jurisdiction to grant rescission of a contract on the ground of common mistake where that contract is valid and enforceable on ordinary principles of contract law. He graduated with an accounting degree from NTU. The plaintiffs orders were processed by the defendants automated system and confirmation notes were automatically despatched to the plaintiffs within a few minutes. Alternatively, knowledge may be readily inferred from what would be regarded as commonly known or notorious facts in the context of the transaction. They then argue that as equitable defences have not been pleaded, the court has no alternative but to allow the claim. The decision ofV.K. The point is, there is a chasm between a clarification amendment and a new or distinct issue being raised at a later stage. It is asserted that since mistake had not been pleaded as an equitable defence, equity cannot be invoked by the defendant. I accept that this is capable of including circumstances in which a person refrains from or simply fails to make enquiries for which the situation reasonably calls and which would have led to discovery of the mistake. In the context of its true market value the absurd price of $66 was almost the commercial equivalent of virtually giving away the laser printers. The most recent and authoritative pronouncement in this area (. The essence of unilateral mistake is the knowledge or deemed knowledge of a mistake and though fraud may often be present it is not an essential ingredient. Imagine the effect of this negative publicity on your future sales! It is postulated by many of the leading treatises that equity has a broad church incorporating a more elastic approach and a court of equity may rescind a contract, award damages or, in limited circumstances, fashion a remedy, to suit the justice of the matter. Singapore Court of Appeal. The court has to be astute and adopt a pragmatic and judicious stance in resolving such issues. Mutual promises, by all accounts, on the basis of existing case law, more than amply constitute consideration. He appeared distinctly uncomfortable during several phases of his cross-examination and his answers on crucial points were evasive and often vague.. His evidence in relation to the level and nature of communications he had with the second and third plaintiffs on the morning in question lacked candour. 156 The plaintiffs claims are dismissed. Ltd.1 has the makings of a student's classic for several reasons: it presents a textbook . He sought to amend his affidavit and testified that if the references in his affidavit implied the acknowledgement of a mistake, they were formulated not by him but by his previous solicitors and were incorrect. In short, where does the justice reside? Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? The rationale for this is that a court will not sanction a contract where there is no consensus ad idem and furthermore it will not allow, as in the case of unilateral mistake, a non-mistaken party to take advantage of an error which he is or ought to be conscious of. It has been a fertile source of academic debate, but in practice it has given rise to a handful of cases that have merely emphasised the confusion of this area of our jurisprudence. But there would have, at least, to be some real reason to suppose the existence of a mistake before it could be incumbent on one party to question whether another party meant what he or she said. This pricing was a mistake, which was fundamental to the contract and the complainants must have known that this absurdly low pricing was an error by the defendants. The plaintiffs refute that the error exonerates the defendant; they insist that a concluded contract is sacrosanct and must be honoured. From time to time there will be cases where this is an overriding consideration. It can however be observed that in mass mistake cases, even when there is no direct evidence as in these proceedings, the court could be prepared to pragmatically assume actual or deemed knowledge of the manifest mistake. The number of orders he placed was nothing short of brazen. In New Zealand, the legislature enacted the Contractual Mistake Act 1977. The terms of the offer are clear and unambiguous and the offeree accepts the offer according to its true sense, but it must have been obvious (and known by the offeree) that the offeror did not intend to make an offer in those terms. There were no such discussions with potential buyers. 108 Chitty on Contracts (28th Ed, 1999) vol1 observes at para5-035: It is not clear whether for the mistake to be operative it must actually be known to the other party, or whether it is enough that it ought to have been apparent to any reasonable man. It is pertinent to note that she placed orders for 32 laser printers including 20 units she ordered on behalf of her sister. As most web merchants have automated software responses, they need to ensure that such automated responses correctly reflect their intentions from an objective perspective. The prospective buyer has to make an offer to purchase which is then accepted by the merchant. It argues that the decision is both fair and economically grounded, and proposes an alternative view to that offered by classical contract law - one that sees fairness intertwined This can result from human interphasing, machine error or a combination of such factors. Added to his own purchases of 760 units, he was effectively responsible for the purchase of 1,090 laser printers. He was also involved in initiating the Channel NewsAsia report (see [78] and [79] infra). Reference this In Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, one of the defendant's employees mistakenly uploaded the contents of a training template onto the defendant's website, resulting in the retail price of S$3,854 for a commercial laser printer on the website being replaced with the figure S$66. When the defendant learnt of the error, it promptly removed the advertisement from its websites, and informed the plaintiffs as well as 778 others who had placed orders for a total of 4,086 laser printers that the price posting was an unfortunate error, and that it would therefore not be meeting the orders. Certainty in commercial transactions should not be trifled with, as this will inevitably affect how commercial and business exchanges are respected and effected. 61 The fifth plaintiff placed an order for 100 laser printers at about 3.51am. Before retiring for the night, the first plaintiff had a further discussion with the second plaintiff on how to store the laser printers they had ordered. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: This selection of essays, case summaries and dissertations is of relevance to law students within the Commonwealth and for those students who are studying the Rule of Law from outside the Commonwealth . As a lawyer, he appears to have been indispensable in the plaintiffs attempts to hold the defendant to the bargain. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd Case No.s Suit 202/2003/E (for the first instance), CA/30/2004 (for the appeal) Name and level of courts High Court of Singapore(at first instance), Singapore Court of Appeal Member of courts VK Rajah, JC (for the first instance), Chao Hick Tin JA, Kan Ting Chiu J, Yong Pung How CJ The case of, The offer was wrongly expressed, and the defendants by their evidence, and by the correspondence, have satisfied me that the plaintiff, 116 The term snapping up was aptly coined by JamesLJ in, 117 It should be emphasised that this stream of authority is consistently recognised by all the major common law jurisdictions. Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594; [2004] SGHC 71 Suit No: Suit 202/2003/E Decision Date: 12 Apr 2004 Court: High Court Coram: V K Rajah JC Counsel: Tan Sok Ling, Malcolm Tan and Mohan Das Vijayaratnam (Tan S L and Partners) for plaintiffs, Philip Fong Yeng Fatt and Doris Chia Ming Lai (Harry Elias [The Myth of Mistake in the English Law of Contract (1954) 70LQR 385 at 396]. The law of mistake has generated its own genre of mistakes and obfuscation. The amounts ordered and the hurried and hasty manner in which the orders were executed are of cardinal importance. The financial consequences could be considerable. In such cases, it would be unconscionable to enforce the bargain and equity will set aside the contract, 26 I respectfully agree with the reasoning of ShawJ in. It deals with the process rather than the substance of how to divine the rule. The plaintiffs are, however, entitled to the cost of the amendments, in any event, which I fix at $1,000. (See for example the approach in, 142 The plaintiffs were bound by personal relationships as well as past and present common commercial interests. Certainty in commercial transactions should not be trifled with, as this will inevitably affect how commercial and business exchanges are respected and effected. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. Case Nos: Suit 202/2003/E (for the first instance), CA/30/2004 (for the appeal) in the High Court of Singapore (at first instance), Singapore Court of Appeal. The law may not imply a condition precedent as to the availability of stock simply to bail out an Internet merchant from a bad bargain, a fortiori in the sale of information and probably services, as the same constraints as to availability and supply may not usually apply to such sales. in the High Court decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd,2 from the perspective of economics. He received this information through an sms message. 54 The fourth plaintiff admits that he had entertained the idea at the material time that the price posting could have been an error. As part of its business, it operates a website owned by Hewlett Packard (HP) at http://www.buyhp.com.sg (the HP website) where only HP products are sold. In Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal was asked to consider if the decision in Great Peace Shipping also had the effect of excluding equity's jurisdiction . One is hard put to imagine that anyone would purchase such an item, let alone place very substantial orders, without making some very basic enquiries as to pricing. 58 The fifth plaintiff was first informed by the second plaintiff at about 2.30am about cheap laser printers being available for purchase. This was also the practice in the trade. The second, third, fourth and sixth plaintiffs are the only individuals who ordered more than a hundred laser printers each. I am not prepared, after full consideration, to assume that the reporters misquoted the facts. The price for equitable justice is uncertainty. He acknowledged having had conversations with the other plaintiffs about how much money we can sell the printer and how much we can make and about storage space as well as how many units we intend to buy. In terms of chronological sequence, the initial page accessed was the shopping cart, followed by checkout-order particulars, checkout-order confirmation, check-out payment details and payment whether by cash on delivery or by credit card. Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502; [2005] SGCA 2. Rules and case law pertaining to amendments are premised upon achieving even-handedness in the context of an adversarial system by: (a) ensuring that the parties apprise each other and the court of the essential facts that they intend to rely on in addressing the issues in controversy or dispute; (b) requiring that an amendment should be attended to in the usual course of events, at an early stage of the proceedings, to ensure that no surprise or prejudice is inflicted on or caused to opposing parties; (c) requiring careful consideration whether any amendments sought at a late stage of the proceedings will cause any prejudice to the opposing party. Added to his own purchases of 760 units, he was effectively responsible for the purchase of 1,090 laser printers. 151 The claims by the plaintiffs are audacious, opportunistic and contrived. They even discussed the possible scenario of the defendant not honouring the transactions. I was neither impressed nor convinced. The other school of thought views the approach outlined earlier with considerable scepticism. http://www.epinions.com/HP_Color_LaserJet_4600_Series_Printer_Printers. Having said that, this exception must always be prudently invoked and judiciously applied; the exiguous scope of this exception is necessary to give the commercial community confidence that commercial transactions will almost invariably be honoured when all the objective contractual indicia are satisfied. There is therefore no pre-condition in law for a mistaken party to show an absence of carelessness to avail himself of this defence; the law precludes a person from seeking to gain an advantage improperly in such circumstances. It should be noted that while the common law jurisdictions continue to wrestle over this vexed issue, most civil law jurisdictions lean towards the recipient rule. CHWEE KIN KEONG and Others v DIGILANDMALL.COM Pte Ltd (2004) 2 SLR 594. I must add that I did not really think this was necessary and subsequent events confirmed my perception. Both parties expressed that they wished to effect amendments to mirror evidence that had been adduced in the proceedings. 92 The Electronics Transaction Act (Cap88, 1999Rev Ed) (ETA) places Internet contractual dealings on a firmer footing. The case involved the sale of printers by the defendant at a price of S$66. 2. It is an important subject for the future development of English contract law. [emphasis added]. In light of these general observations, I now address the law on unilateral mistake. [2005] 1 SLR (R) Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd 507 printers. 110 In OT Africa Line Ltd v Vickers Plc [1996] 1Lloyds Rep 700 at 703, ManceJ held that the objective theory ought not to apply if a party had knowledge that a mistake had occurred: The question is what is capable of displacing that apparent agreement. He claimed he wanted to find out how much profit he could make. It can be noted, however, that while s15 of the ETA appears to be inclined in favour of the receipt rule, commentaries indicate that it is not intended to affect substantive law. This could account for the substantial number of Canadian cases in this area of the law. This rationalised the law and gives the court a broad discretion to fashion the applicable relief. There was no satisfactory reason for the genesis of this e-mail (see [67] infra). To determine the profit potential, the second plaintiff had to take steps to ascertain the true market price of the laser printer which he did. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. 87 It appeared to me that the extract from Singapore Civil Procedure 2003 relied on by the plaintiffs was blindly lifted from earlier editions of the English White Book without any consideration as to how it dovetails with the present procedural climate. This thread helps to rationalise the development of the common law but ought not to be viewed as supporting the existence of a general test of commercial morality tantamount to the test of unconscionability invoked by equity. . It would be illogical to have different approaches for different product sales over the Internet. At the very least, it has been forcefully asserted that even when a mistake does not result in voiding a contract through the application of common law principles, there remains an independent doctrine of mistake founded in equity which justifies judicial intervention. HIGH COURT. They are not mechanical rules to be applied in a vacuum, devoid of a contextual setting. 49 Tan Cheng Pengs brief evidence did not really assist the third plaintiff. Others do not. In addition to the law of (especially, unilateral) mistake, issues relating to the formation of a contract will be considered (including the law relating to offer and . What amounts to snapping up is a question of degree that will incorporate a spectrum of contextual factors: what is objectively and subjectively known, the magnitude of the transaction(s), the circumstances in which the orders are placed and whether any unusual factors are apparent. VKR a j a hJ C. 27-30 January; 2-6, 9 February; 13 March; 12 April 2004. There is one important exception to this principle. Court Judgement chwee kin keong and others digilandmall.com pte ltd slr sghc 71 suit no: suit decision 12 apr 2004 date: court: coram: counsel: high court rajah Skip to document Ask an Expert Sign inRegister Sign inRegister Home Ask an ExpertNew My Library Discovery Institutions London School of Business and Finance SAA Global Education [emphasis added]. Similar works. It is, in large measure, determined by making an objective appraisal of the exchanges between the parties. He is currently self-employed and is intimately involved in the multi-level marketing sales of aromatherapy products under the Bel-Air label. To that extent, his evidence that he subsequently dismissed the notion altogether is unacceptable. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:41 u want it for profit or personal use? In-house law team, Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502, Contract unilateral mistake Internet Contract Consensus ad Idem Meeting of the Minds Acceptance Offer Void Error. Not all one-sided transactions or bargains are improper. After referring to a series of leading cases, including the often quoted decision of ThomsonJ in McMaster University v Wilchar Construction Ltd (1971), 22DLR(3d) 9 (Ont HCJ), Chief Justice McLachlin said at p37: One circumstance falling clearly within the equitable jurisdiction of the Court to relieve against mistake is that where one party, knowing of the others mistake as to the terms of an offer, remains silent and concludes a contract on the mistaken terms: Solle, supra; Belle River Community Arena v WJC Kaufman Co (1978), 20OR(2d) 447, 4 BLR 231, 87DLR(3d) 761 (CA). 117 It should be emphasised that this stream of authority is consistently recognised by all the major common law jurisdictions. He claims visiting, 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings. Upon accessing the Digilandmall website and confirming that the printer was offered there at $66 as well, he placed a further order for 25 laser printers through that website at about 3.29am. This final mass e-mail only reinforces my view that the first plaintiff consistently and continuously entertained the view that the price posting on the HP website was a mistake. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:44 if they dont honor it Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:45 sell me one lah name your price ;-) sue them lor , Desmond: 13/01/20 01:45 I think they will give vouchers or special deals. 104 The creases over the theoretical approach to adopt in determining the existence of contracts have for some time now been decisively ironed out in favour of the objective theory. He was also a partner in what is described as a printing business. Mistakes are usually synonymous with the existence of carelessness on the part of the mistaken party. Unilateral Mistake at . 141 In so far as the sixth plaintiff is concerned, I emphasise that his knowledge and/or conduct of should be equated with that of the third plaintiff. It appears that he was also in touch with the fifth plaintiff as evidenced by an e-mail sent later that morning by the fifth plaintiff to both him and the second plaintiff containing research, 52 He then called the second plaintiff on his handphone and informed him that he intended to purchase 50 laser printers. While this is the general principle for shop displays, it is open to a merchant to offer by way of an advertisement the mechanics of a unilateral or bilateral contract. 10 News of the rather extraordinary laser printer pricing began to spread like wildfire within the local Internet community. There are in this connection two schools of thought. Keywords Contract Online Store Mistake Pricing Mistake Citation This new template was designed to facilitate instantaneous price changes allowing them to be simultaneously reflected in the relevant Internet web pages. Transactions over websites are almost invariably instantaneous and/or interactive. 31 He admitted receiving a call from the first plaintiff at about 2.00am but claimed the first plaintiff merely apprised him of a good deal. Where common mistake is pleaded, the presence of agreement is admitted. Abstract. Though the actual price of the laser printer was $3,854, the defendant had on 8January 2003 mistakenly posted the price at $66.00 on its websites. hahaha means S$132, Desmond 13/01/20 01:43 even $500 is a steal. reference was made by the court to "fraud or a very high degree of misconduct" before the non- mistaken party could be . The e-mails sent at 2.34am were also captioned Go load it now! These considerations take precedence over the culpability associated with causing the mistake. Part of the training module included hands-on training with a new template for a Price Mass Upload function. The transcript states that the third and the fifth plaintiffs saw a great opportunity and grabbed it. Again he attempted to minimise the impact of these observations by saying his subsequent searches erased all such doubts. In the Singapore context a similar approach has been adopted by the Court of Appeal in Aircharter World Pte Ltd v Kontena Nasional Bhd [1999] 3 SLR 1 at [30] and [31], and Projection Pte Ltd v The Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd [2001] 2 SLR 399 at [15]. The fact that it may have been negligent is not a relevant factor in these proceedings. Date of Verdicts: 12 April 2004, 13 January 2005. Ltd. Yeo Tiong Min* I. 90 After leave was granted to amend the defence, each of the plaintiffs filed a further short affidavit refuting knowledge of the mistake relating to pricing. This gives their courts a broad and elastic jurisdiction to deal with commercially inappropriate behaviour. When, however, the cases provoked by these factual situations are analysed, they will be seen to fall, not into three, but only two distinct legal categories. It appears that in Convention transactions, the receipt rule applies unless there is a contrary intention. 101 RSS Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Expand/Collapse. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte.
(codeandqa.com)
