chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court

The e-mails sent at 2.34am were also captioned Go load it now! 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. The case of Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3All ER 566 is incontrovertibly the leading authority in this area. The case involved the sale of printers by the defendant at a price of S$66. Ltd. has the makings of a student's classic for several reasons, including: 1. He said that he wanted to be sure that the offer on the HP website was genuine. (PDF) Unilateral Mistake in Contract: Five Degrees of - ResearchGate 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. When notified and satisfied that this transaction was successful as well, he placed a final order at 4.21am for ten laser printers on the HP website, charging this to his credit card. 101 RSS Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Expand/Collapse. CLARK, B. However, at the actual hearing of the applications, plaintiffs counsel opposed any amendments whatsoever to the defence and sought leave to withdraw the plaintiffs earlier unilateral amendments. If he was prepared to commit this view in writing to a larger circle of 54 friends and business associates after his communication with the second and third plaintiffs, he would certainly have shared this view with his close friends with even greater candour and detail. CISG-online is a research platform dedicated to the law and practice of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods adopted in Vienna on 11 April 1980 (CISG), as well as related areas of international commercial law. The sixth plaintiff told his brother to order some for him, without specifying how many laser printers he wanted or how he intended to pay for the laser printers. Gill & Duffus Landauer Ltd v London Export Corp GmbH [1982] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 627. In the final stage of the process, after the payment mode was indicated, each of the plaintiffs was notified successful transaction your order and payment transaction has been processed. chwee kin keong and others digilandmall.com pte ltd sghc 71 case number suit decision date 12 april 2004 high court coram rajah jc counsel name(s) tan sok ling Skip to document Ask an Expert Sign inRegister Sign inRegister Home Ask an ExpertNew My Library Discovery Institutions Republic Polytechnic London School of Business and Finance Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v DBS Bank Ltd and another appeal and another Indeed this appears to be the underlying rationale for the unique legal characteristics attributed to an invitation to treat; see. Indeed, upon re-examination, he attempted to distance himself from the portion of his affidavit suggesting that the possibility of a genuine mistake had crossed his mind after the first transaction. 1 In the early hours of the morning of 13January 2003, six friends, the plaintiffs in this case, placed orders over the Internet for 1,606 sophisticated Hewlett Packard commercial laser printers (the laser printer(s)). In a Straits Times report dated 15January 2003 captioned $66 printer error angry customers seek lawyers help, it was reported that the second plaintiff, described as a network marketer had on 13January at about 2.00am stumbled upon a offer he could not believe $66 for a Hewlett Packard laserjet printer that normally sells for $3,854 before GST. HIGH COURT. Their The recipient rule is therefore more convenient and relevant in the context of both instantaneous or near instantaneous communications. Rather, in my opinion, constructive knowledge alone will suffice to invoke equitys conscience. 22 The exchange between the first plaintiff and Desmond provides an intimate and revealing insight into the first plaintiffs thought process at the material time; the exchange fluctuated between bantering on the one hand, to nothing short of the candid exchange of thoughts on the other, revealing that the first plaintiff was fully aware of the likely existence of an error in pricing. 45 The most telling aspect of the third plaintiffs evidence is his admission that he made Internet searches relating to the pricing of the laser printer, immediately after he was contacted by the first plaintiff. The question is what is capable of displacing that apparent agreement. 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 . The defendant programmed the software. I must add that these were far from being ordinary printers for home use. Thus the task of ascertaining whether the parties have reached agreement as to the terms of a contract can involve quite a complex amalgam of the objective and the subjective and involve the application of a principle that bears close comparison with the doctrine of estoppel. 69 The sixth plaintiff was awakened by his brother, the third plaintiff, at about 3.00am. The first and fifth appellants each ordered a hundred printers, while the other appellants ordered more than a hundred printers each. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:42 I want at least one for personal use 2 would be good coz my gf needs one too any more than that would be a bonus ;-), Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:43 anyway, I dont mind buying over if you have frens who want to sell buy at twice the price!! The transcript states that the third and the fifth plaintiffs saw a great opportunity and grabbed it. 8 The proper description of the laser printer, HPC9660A Color LaserJet 4600, was, as a result of the accident, replaced by the numerals 55; while the numerals 66 replaced the correct price of the laser printer priced at $3,854 and the numerals 77 replaced the original corporate price of the laser printer priced at $3,448. In fact, he and the fourth plaintiff have jointly conceptualised and implemented an Internet-related business. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:33 how many u intend to get? 4, 1971, p. 331. The contract stands according to the natural meaning of the words used. 107 As the law now stands, mistakes that are not fundamental or which do not relate to an essential term do not vitiate consent. COOKE v OXLEY (1790) 3 T. R. 653. 128 The most significant judicial pronouncement supporting this view emanates from the recent English Court of Appeal in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2003] QB 679, a case of common mistake. com Pte Ltd30 that was primarily about unilateral mistake. The amounts ordered and the hurried and hasty manner in which the orders were executed are of cardinal importance. Despite the general views expressed in Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151CLR 422 on equitable mistake, it seems to be generally accepted in Australia as well, that this class of cases requires special mention and consideration. Such conduct is akin to that of an unscrupulous commercial predator seeking to take advantage of an error by an unsuspecting prey by pouncing upon it before the latter has an opportunity to react or raise a shield of defence. He claims he then accessed the US HP website either through a Google web search engine or by abbreviating the url of the HP website. 154 Interestingly, of the 784 persons who placed 1,008 orders for 4,086 laser printers, only these six plaintiffs have attempted to enforce their purported contractual rights. Offer and acceptances have to reach an intended recipient to be efective. The preface I do not know in no way detracts from this; the e-mail being addressed to a large group of 54 persons, the first plaintiff would simply not have wanted to commit himself by saying I know. What is urged is that, owing to a common error as to some fundamental fact, the agreement is robbed of all efficacy. Yong Pung HowCJ in, [T]he function of the court is to try as far as practical experience allows, to ensure that the, Tan Sok Ling, Malcolm Tan and Mohan Das Vijayaratnam (Tan S L and Partners) for plaintiffs; 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. 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. Counsel however contends that even if this e-mail were to be read literally, this should not affect the first plaintiffs own purchase that had taken place an hour earlier. A viewer from any part of the world may want to enter into a contract to purchase a product as advertised. 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings. In the absence of proper and full arguments on the issue of which rule is to be preferred, I do not think it is appropriate for me to give any definitive views in these proceedings on this very important issue. The plaintiffs refute that the error exonerates the defendant; they insist that a concluded contract is sacrosanct and must be honoured. 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. COOTE, B. six plaintiffs ordered 1,606 printers. We are, Our conclusion is that it is impossible to reconcile, In this case we have heard full argument, which has provided what we believe has been the first opportunity in this court for a full and mature consideration of the relation between, 129 The careful analysis of case law undertaken by that court yields a cogent and forceful argument that Lord DenningMR was plainly attempting to side-step, 130 It can be persuasively argued that given (a)the historical pedigree of the cases, (b)the dictates of certainty and predictability in the business community and (c)the general acceptance of the existence of distinct common law rules, it is preferable not to conflate these concepts. Not all one-sided transactions or bargains are improper. Notwithstanding, the defendant does not take issue with this as the sixth plaintiffs orders were received and the appropriate automated responses generated. Again he attempted to minimise the impact of these observations by saying his subsequent searches erased all such doubts. It presents a textbook example of offer and acceptance. Both parties expressed that they wished to effect amendments to mirror evidence that had been adduced in the proceedings. There cannot be any legitimate expectation of enforcement on the part of the non-mistaken party seeking to take advantage of appearances. I have carefully considered the issue of costs and have noted that the defendant had, in the process of mounting a root and branch attack on the plaintiffs claim, pursued some unmeritorious contentions. This can be supported by the decision of the High Court of Singapore in the case of Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, in which Judicial Commissioner Rajah argued that "the party who selects the means of communication should bear the consequences of any unexpected events" . Bulletin_11_2009 - CLJLaw But it is difficult to see how that can apply here. He was also a partner in what is described as a printing business. Abstract The decision of V.K. He appeared to be consummately familiar with Internet practices and was forced to concede that he thought it was weird and unusual when he saw the number 55 on the relevant webpages in place of the actual product description. After all, what would he do with 100 obsolete commercial laser printers? He was aware that the laser printers were targeted for business use. Part of the training module included hands-on training with a new template for a Price Mass Upload function. In the light of that consideration we can see no way that Solle v Butcher can stand with Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. By their own admission, they made Internet searches through various search engines to ascertain the profits they could make. The first plaintiffs callname in this exchange is Scorpio. Given its global reach and ever changing technological advancements, Internet usage will pose a myriad of issues for resolution. While this case needs to be treated with some caution, as it appears to integrate concepts of law and equity, I respectfully agree with the approach in so far as it deals with deemed knowledge. Computer glitches can cause transmission failures, garbled information or even change the nature of the information transmitted. 64 The fifth plaintiff was vague and tentative in many crucial aspects of his evidence. Unlike instances of fraud, where it is said fraud unravels the existing contract, in instances of unilateral mistake, the very existence of the contract is negatived there is no consensus. Added to his own purchases of 760 units, he was effectively responsible for the purchase of 1,090 laser printers. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. In support of the latter it might be argued that unlike a posting, e-mail communication takes place in a relatively short time frame. 19 Later in the morning, at about 4.15am, the fourth plaintiff sent the following e-mail to the first plaintiff, copied to the second plaintiff only: Subject: Re: IMPT HP Colour LaserJet going at only $66!! After hearing their evidence, observing them and considering the submissions made on their behalf, there was no doubt in my mind that they were fully conscious that an unfortunate and egregious mistake had indeed been made by the defendant. He tried to convey the impression that it never struck him that a mistake in the price posting of the laser printer could have occurred. The decision ofV.K. This cannot be right. 92 The Electronics Transaction Act (Cap88, 1999Rev Ed) (ETA) places Internet contractual dealings on a firmer footing. 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. The CISG has currently been adopted by 95 Contracting States world-wide. A party may not snap at an obviously mistaken offer: McMaster. Alarm bells would have sounded immediately. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. I note that Chitty at para5-089, fn25 sagely opines that Taylor v Johnson does not represent English law, at least, where the other party knows that a mistake has been made. , In unilateral mistake, only one of the parties is mistaken. This gives their courts a broad and elastic jurisdiction to deal with commercially inappropriate behaviour. The essential point remains: will prejudice be caused and/or are any policy considerations called into play. Having noted all this, I am nevertheless inclined towards the views expressed in the, 131 In a number of cases, including the present, it may not really matter which view is preferred. We can understand why the decision in Bell v Lever Bros Ltd did not find favour with Lord DenningMR. An equitable jurisdiction to grant rescission on terms where a common fundamental mistake has induced a contract gives greater flexibility than a doctrine of common law which holds the contract void in such circumstances. It is germane to observe that none of the cases purporting to follow Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 have with any degree of clarity defined the parameters of equitable mistake in contradistinction to a common law mistake. The first plaintiff introduced him to the other plaintiffs. It appears to suggest that even if an offer is snapped up, the contract is not void. 151 The claims by the plaintiffs are audacious, opportunistic and contrived. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com (2005) - Singaporean case 3d printers sold for $66 instead of $3,800. In terms of chronological sequence, the initial page accessed was the shopping cart, followed by checkout-order . Parties Chwee Kin Keong & Others v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. Decision date 12/04/2004. Why? In this case we have heard full argument, which has provided what we believe has been the first opportunity in this court for a full and mature consideration of the relation between Bell v Lever Bros Ltd [1932] AC 161 and Solle v Butcher. Singapore Court of Appeal. He graduated with an accounting degree from NTU. PDF Blips And Blunders: The Law Concerning Mistakes Made In Electronic C {Q V 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 . Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall Pte Ltd The defendant, Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, were an online IT company that sold related software and hardware from Singapore. His counsel contends that the idea the price was a mistake never arose in the second plaintiffs mind; he was preoccupied with thinking about the profit potential of the laser printers. (See for example the approach in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1990] 1AllER 512.) 86 In cases where the facts raised in the proposed amendments have been addressed during the evidence and submissions and, particularly, where the opposing side has also had an opportunity to address the very same points, there can hardly ever be any real prejudice. Contract Acceptance by Email - LawTeacher.net Notwithstanding some real differences with posting, it could be argued cogently that the postal rule should apply to e-mail acceptances; in other words, that the acceptance is made the instant the offer is sent. There are, however, other sound reasons to argue against such a rule in favour of the recipient rule. Neither party raised any objections. 100 There is however another statute that ought to be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate default rule in e-commerce transactions. Comments Published in English: [2004] 2 SLR 594; [2004] SGHC 71. Borneo United Sawmills Sdn Bhd v. MUI Continental Insurance Bhd (Marine insurance - Loss of goods - Claim for loss of goods under Marine Cargo Policy) [2009] 8 CLJ 217. They assumed that to be the position. Case law chwee kin keong v digilandmallcom pte ltd In its pleaded case, the defendant asserts that the automated e-mail responses it sent out in the early hours of 13January 2003 did not confirm that stock of the laser printers were available and would be delivered. In the fifth plaintiffs affidavit evidence, he asserted emphatically and unequivocally that at no point did I ever think that the price of the printers were a mistake. 76 On Monday, 13January 2003, at about 9.15am, an employee of the defendant received a call from a prospective customer inquiring whether the defendant was aware of the posted price of $66 for the laser printers on the HP website. June 16, 2022; Posted by why do chavs wear tracksuits; 16 . However, if the defendant did not have stock, it would immediately call the supplier and procure the products for the end-user. 103 The amalgam of factors a court will have to consider in risk allocation ought to include: (a) the need to observe the principle of upholding rather than destroying contracts, (b) the need to facilitate the transacting of electronic commerce, and. "Unilateral Mistake in Contract: Five Degrees of Fusion of Common Law a I agree that this exception should be kept within a very narrow compass. Limit orders: order to be executed only when the desired price is available. 6 On Wednesday, 8January 2003 between 3.00pm and 4.00pm, DILs employees conducted a training session at the defendants premises. PDF Contract Formation and Mistake in Cyberspace - the Singapore Experience 3. I reject this. 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). In a, WHILE surfing the Net at about 2am on Monday, MrTan Wei Teck stumbled upon an offer, 82 The plaintiffs strenuously opposed the defendants amendments principally on the ground it was made at a late juncture. The ETA is essentially permissive. 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. 118 The Canadian courts have been the most active common law courts explicating and developing this area of the law. They have a common interest in bridge and this helped to cement their friendship. His communications with the fifth plaintiff, a lawyer, on the efficacy of the terms and conditions also lead to the ineluctable conclusion that he harboured anxieties whether this astoundingly good deal would be honoured when the error was discovered. Claiming he was in a light-hearted kind of mood during his ICQ (acronym for I-Seek-You) conversation with Desmond, he insisted that this conversation should be taken neither seriously nor literally. The non-mistaken partys appreciation that there is no real offer on the contracts literal terms undermines the basis of the objective theory and necessarily imports the lack of subjective intention on the part of the mistaken party. Chwee Kin Keong vs Digilandmall.com 139 Next, the defendant contends that no consideration passed from the plaintiffs to them. There was no satisfactory reason for the genesis of this e-mail (see [67] infra). 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. In light of these general observations, I now address the law on unilateral mistake. Often the essence of good business is the use of superior knowledge. 88 The fact that the amending party has been tardy or even negligent is a factor that a court can (and in some egregious cases, should) take into account but this is by no means a decisive factor (cf Ketteman v Hansel Properties). The text of the e-mail further reinforces the point. 155 The Internet has revolutionised commerce and radically altered the manner in which commercial interaction currently takes place. Typical transactions are usually but not invariably characterised by (a)indecent alacrity; and (b)behaviour that any fair-minded commercial person similarly circumstanced would regard as a patent affront to commercial fairplay or morality. In this case, Defendant was selling IT products over internet in Singapore. Chwee Kin Keong decision - Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594; - Studocu Caso 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 jc tan sok IgnorarExperimenta 'Pergunta a um Especialista' Pergunta a um especialista 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. 39 The sequence of orders placed by the second plaintiff in the short space of an hour and a half deserves some mention. Errors may incur wholly unexpected, and sometimes untoward, consequences as these proceedings so amply demonstrate. Abstract. This was also the practice in the trade. 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). Chwee KIN Keong AND Others v Digilandmall.COM PTE LTD [2004 ] SGHC 71 In the context of the present proceedings, the extra-judicial observations of Lord Steyn in Contract Law: Fulfilling the Reasonable Expectations of Honest Men (1997) 113LQR 433 at 433 are particularly apposite: A thread runs through our contract law that effect must be given to reasonable expectations of honest men. After further sms exchanges, the second plaintiff contacted the fifth plaintiff on his mobile phone, urging him to return home to access the e-mail message he had just sent. The issue could be critical where third party rights are in issue as in Shogun. Put another way, that decision seems to indicate that the effect of a unilateral mistake is only to render a contract unenforceable rather than void. case concerning the purchase of laser printers from an online retailer, Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall 76 : To effect the purchase transactions on the respective websites, the plaintiffs had to navigate through several web pages. The law of mistake has generated its own genre of mistakes and obfuscation. The answer on the authorities is a mistake by one party of which the other, 111 This approach appears to have been endorsed by Judith PrakashJ in, 114 For good measure, I should allude that the plaintiffs in their written submissions concede that in order to establish that mistake is operative at common law, the defendant has to show in this instant case that the plaintiffs each had, 115 There is a distinct line of cases within the narrow confines of unilateral mistake where the common law has been resolutely disinclined to enforce apparent contracts. 13 The first plaintiff, Chwee Kin Keong, is 29 years old. 14 The first, second and fourth plaintiffs became acquainted with each other when they studied at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU). In accordance with s15(1) of the ETA, acceptance would be effective the moment the offer enters that node of the network outside the control of the originator. 7191 RSS High Court Expand/Collapse. 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: It is not necessary to prove actual knowledge on the part of the non-mistaken party in order to ground relief, as, In summary therefore, the equitable jurisdiction of the Courts to relieve against mistake in contract comprehends situations where one party, who knows or ought to know of anothers mistake in a fundamental term, remains silent and snaps at the offer, seeking to take advantage of the others mistake. Upon completing this sequence, each of the orders placed by the plaintiffs was confirmed by automated responses from the respective websites stating Successful Purchase Confirmation from HP online. He claims visiting, inter alia, the Epinions and Hardwarezone websites, and though it appears that there was at the material time a discussion thread on the error on the Hardwarezone website, the fourth plaintiff denied having seen this. "Unilateral Mistake at Common Law and in Equity" by Kelvin Fatt Kin LOW V K Rajah JC. Furthermore, they relied on a passage from Singapore Civil Procedure 2003 (Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 2003) at para20/8/47 that asserts: At the trial leave to amend particulars will as a rule be refused (Moss v Malings (1886) 83ChD 603).