chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court

v . 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 on what companies who had made similar Internet errors did. A number of them have very close relationships, with some of them even sharing common business interests. The second, third, fourth and sixth plaintiffs are the only individuals who ordered more than a hundred laser printers each. It is significant that some of the plaintiffs had never made any prior Internet purchases before that eventful morning. 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. He claims visiting, 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings. 91 There is no real conundrum as to whether contractual principles apply to Internet contracts. But that, surely, is a question as to where the common law should draw the line; not whether, given the common law rule, it needs to be mitigated by application of some other doctrine. Web Communication: A Review Of Chwee Kin Keong And Others v. Digilandmall.com pte ltd by Rokiah Kadir [2009] 8 CLJ xxi. The plaintiffs also assert in their submissions that if contracts are only upheld if parties acted honourably there would be very few contracts left standing in the commercial world. 27 The first plaintiff obviously took the view that the advertisement should be acted upon urgently. 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. Our conclusion is that it is impossible to reconcile Solle v Butcher with Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. 149 It is clear from the authorities reviewed that such a contract, if entered into by a party with actual or presumed knowledge of an error, is void from the outset. The decision of V.K. This, in a nutshell, is the issue at the heart of these proceedings. 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings. 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. 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. He graduated with an accounting degree from NTU. Her evidence was inconsequential and did not assist the plaintiffs. 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 coz they might change it anytime, are all compelling in reflecting his state of mind and awareness that an error had occurred. Court reference 202 of 2003. 9 The defendants assertion that Samuel Teo had neither the authority nor the intention to make any alterations to the laser printers price is now accepted by the plaintiffs. The ETA is essentially permissive. Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004 . However, not all principles will or can apply in the same manner that they apply to traditional paper-based and oral contracts. 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. 124 A number of decisions over the last five decades emanating from several common law jurisdictions even go so far as to suggest that with the integration of the courts of common law and equity, equitable principles now hold sway and that earlier common law decisions need reinterpretation. The unconstrained exchange that followed between the two is both revealing and compelling. 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. Case Note: Singapore | Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review http://www.buy.hp.com.sg/hp/StandardProduct.cfm?prodid=HPC9960A. They are not entitled to the costs of the subsequent brief hearing, for reasons I now deal with summarily. The issue could be critical where third party rights are in issue as in. He then carried out some checks on the Yahoo search engine to ascertain whether the printer model existed and whether the laser printer could be sold at more than $66. It was the defendants computer system. 74 Under product description on each webpage, instead of the actual description of the laser printer which in this case should have been HP9660A Color LaserJet 4600, only the numerals 55 appeared: this was the result of Samuel Teos earlier inadvertent input. As the reports contradict portions of their present evidence, they have indirectly tried to cast doubt on the accuracy of the reports in so far as the reports referred to them. This is in contrast to the English position where after several decades Hartog v Colin & Shields still remains the locus classicus. 96 In an Internet sale, a prospective purchaser is not able to view the physical stock available. 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 following excerpt is particularly significant and compelling: 23 The subsequent exchange further clarifies that the first plaintiff was fully conscious of the potential profit element arising from the purchase of a substantial number of the laser printers. He is also described as the sole proprietor and manager of two other businesses that provide business support and consultancy. I found his entire evidence relating to his communication with the first and other plaintiffs unsatisfactory and in many aspects incredulous. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! A steady stream of decisions from common law courts indicate a measured but nevertheless distinctly incremental willingness to extend the scope of the exception to not just actual knowledge, but deemed or constructive knowledge as well. In light of this, the parties did not address me on the issue of when the contract was formed, though this appears to be a relevant issue depending on which rule is adopted. 118 The Canadian courts have been the most active common law courts explicating and developing this area of the law. 34 He also visited the Digilandmall website to familiarise himself with their standard terms and conditions. Inflexible and mechanical rules lead to injustice. 17 Having called the second and third plaintiffs at about 2.00am, the first plaintiff also sent them, via e-mail, a weblink of the relevant HP website pages. In evidence he explained his conduct in the following manner: I felt that I had done all that was conceivably within my means to ensure that the Price was not a mistake. 112 Phang ([106] supra, at 418) rightly observes: It must be stressed that, in this context, a man is taken to have known what would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the light of the surrounding circumstances. 131 In a number of cases, including the present, it may not really matter which view is preferred. Contract doctrine is substantially predicated upon achieving an ethical equilibrium between the individualistic ethic and community ethic in order to protect reasonable or legitimate expectations. This is to be contrasted with: Hare, Inequitable Mistake (2003) 62CLJ 29, Chandler et al, Common Mistake: Theoretical Justification and Remedial Inflexibility [2004] JBL 34. In support of the latter it might be argued that unlike a posting, e-mail communication takes place in a relatively short time frame. 32 Satisfied with his enquiries in relation to the printer model, he returned to the HP website and placed an order for 100 laser printers at about 2.23am. He then zealously sent at about 2.58am, an e-mail to 54 persons, all of whom were friends and/or business associates. There is constant tension in our legal system to accommodate the Janus-like considerations of fairness and finality. 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. At 4.16am he placed another order for one laser printer, by credit card, on the HP website. 26 It is clear from the priority status accorded to the e-mail that the first plaintiff was sharing his knowledge of a good deal. 55 The fourth plaintiff is technologically savvy and runs an Internet business with the second plaintiff. 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. In doing so, they appear to have also conflated equitable and common law concepts. Consideration was less than executory and non-existent. This has clearly caused much confusion in the common law jurisdictions. 83 The defendant maintained that there was no element of surprise and/or prejudice arising from the amendments. 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. 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. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR(R) 594; [2004] 2 SLR 594 (refd) Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter [2009] 2 SLR(R) 332; [2009] 2 SLR 332 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. This price was much lower than the actual retail price, and had been posted on the defendant's website by mistake. 44 He made his first purchase of ten laser printers at about 2.42am. They want Digiland to honour the deal or at least to compensate them. 143 The stark gaping difference between the price posting and the market price of the laser printer would have made it obvious to any objective person that something was seriously amiss. 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. They proceeded to file their amendments to the statement of claim as if leave had already been given. Most telling of all, I note that the first to fifth plaintiffs exhibited identical reports in each of their affidavits without any qualification whatsoever. No modern authority was cited to me suggesting an intended commercial transaction of this nature could ever fail for want of consideration. The relevant text reads: WHILE surfing the Net at about 2am on Monday, MrTan Wei Teck stumbled upon an offer he could not believe $66 for a Hewlett Packard laserjet printer that normally sells for $3,854 before GST. In addition, he despatched e-mails to the fourth and fifth plaintiffs attaching a hyperlink to the HP website. He was aware that the laser printers were targeted for business use. 100 There is however another statute that ought to be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate default rule in e-commerce transactions. Mutual promises, by all accounts, on the basis of existing case law, more than amply constitute consideration. Contract Acceptance by Email - LawTeacher.net I invited both parties to indicate if they wished to amend their pleadings. A prospective purchaser is entitled to rely on the terms of the web advertisement. As a lawyer, he appears to have been indispensable in the plaintiffs attempts to hold the defendant to the bargain. 38 The second plaintiff came across as intelligent and resourceful. His Internet research alone would have confirmed that. This contention is wholly untenable. In Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd , 1 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. 71 The sixth plaintiffs position can be dealt with very briefly. 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. This gives their courts a broad and elastic jurisdiction to deal with commercially inappropriate behaviour. June 16, 2022; Posted by why do chavs wear tracksuits; 16 . As the Channel NewsAsia report so succinctly summarised they saw a great opportunity and grabbed it. 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. 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. 28 In any event, the first plaintiffs commercial background and business experience alone would have amply alerted him to the likelihood of the pricing being a mistake, even without his conversation with Desmond. Having pointed out 6 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 . 29 The first plaintiff struck me as an opportunistic entrepreneur. 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. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. 39 The sequence of orders placed by the second plaintiff in the short space of an hour and a half deserves some mention. He is also a director and shareholder in a company engaging in wholesale trade, together with the second and third plaintiffs. Even if it were to be held that there is now a general test of unconscionability applicable to all types of mistake, the plaintiffs contentions will not take them far. While commercial entities ought not to be given a licence to relax their vigilance, the policy considerations in refusing to enforce mistaken agreements militate against attaching undue weight to the carelessness involved in spawning the mistake. They have taken into account both the English and Australian authorities in distilling the jurisprudence in this area. In Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR (R) 594 (" Digilandmall.com "), the plaintiffs concerned placed orders over the Internet for a total of 1,606 Hewlett Packard commercial laser printers on the defendant (seller's) websites. The pleadings, in such instances, merely formalise what is already before the court. 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. To assert that as a rule, leave to amend particulars will be refused, is both illogical and incorrect. Normally the contract is only concluded when the acceptance is communicated by the offeree to the offeror. They were clearly anxious to place their orders before the defendant took steps to correct the error. 80 Upon the conclusion of submissions, I directed counsel to appear before me. Thus, while the idea of snapping up may well apply in cases one side is aware of the other sides error, I do not think it can be applied literally in the constructive knowledge cases. 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. 327. Amendments after conclusion of submissions. He commenced practice in 2000 and currently practices with the law firm representing the plaintiffs in this action. The recipient rule is therefore more convenient and relevant in the context of both instantaneous or near instantaneous communications. V K Rajah JC: Para continuar leyendo. A court will not enforce the plaintiffs purported contracts even if they are not void. 151 The claims by the plaintiffs are audacious, opportunistic and contrived. 109 This cautious statement by Chitty needs to be carefully reconsidered in the context of recent developments in this area of law. The first, second and third plaintiffs have been friends for a long time and are bound by common business interests. I have found that the plaintiffs had at all material times knowledge of or, at the very least, a real belief that an error had been made by the defendant in the price posting. Notwithstanding occasional failure, most e-mails arrive sooner rather than later. 105 It is not only reasonable but right that the objective appearance of a contract should not operate in favour of a party who is aware, in the eyes of the law, of the true state of affairs when, for instance, there is real misapprehension on the part of the mistaken party and when the actual reality of the situation is starkly obvious. The leading Canadian decision in this area is the case of, 120 The widening of jurisdiction to embrace a broad equitable jurisdiction could well encourage litigious behaviour and promote uncertainty. 134 It is not really in issue that contracts can be effectively concluded over the Internet and that programmed computers sending out automated responses can bind the sender. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:47 u make me greedy, Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:47 ok lor if you insist . These considerations take precedence over the culpability associated with causing the mistake. Mistakes are usually synonymous with the existence of carelessness on the part of the mistaken party. 21 The first plaintiff must have realised at the outset that he would have to explain with a certain measure of credibility the purport and significance of all his Internet communications between 1.00am and 3.00am on 13January 2003. The law ought to take a practical approach in dealing with such cases if it appears that by exercising reasonable care the true facts ought to be known. I was neither impressed nor convinced. 56 He vacillated throughout his evidence between a propensity to embellish his evidence on the one hand and to hold back on the other. He appears to have been in constant communication with the second plaintiff and to have received and read the mass e-mail from the first plaintiff after he placed his first purchase order. David Baxter Edward Thomas and Peter Sandford Gander v BPE Solicitors (a firm) [2010] EWHC 306 (Ch) Dunlop v Higgins (1848) 1 HLC 381. It appears to suggest that even if an offer is snapped up, the contract is not void. The decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in 25659 BC Ltd v 456795 BC Ltd (1999) 171DLR(4th) 470 at [25] to [26], is instructive: 25 The law of mistake was discussed in depth by McLachlinCJBC in First City Capital Ltd v BC Building Corp (1989), 43BLR 29 (SC). As such, I would strongly appeal to you to reconsider your decision. There are, however, other sound reasons to argue against such a rule in favour of the recipient rule. Their reference to arbitraging was a nebulous fig leaf designed to legitimise their conduct in a cloak of legal and commercial respectability. 120 The widening of jurisdiction to embrace a broad equitable jurisdiction could well encourage litigious behaviour and promote uncertainty. This was also the practice in the trade. Keywords Contract Online Store Mistake Pricing Mistake Citation Case law chwee kin keong v digilandmallcom pte ltd. School Nanyang Technological University; Course Title ACC 1301; Uploaded By saint_huimin. Unilateral Mistake in Contract: Five Degrees of Fusion of - Jstor If this rule applies to international sales, is it sensible to have a different rule for domestic sales? Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd: A Commentary - SSRN chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court. The sixth plaintiff is precluded from asserting his ignorance. He was opportunistic in effecting his purchases, active in co-ordinating with the other plaintiffs on the eventful morning, and economical with the truth in his evidence. The first plaintiff introduced him to the other plaintiffs. This was not noticed by the company until over 4,000 printers were ordered. Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502; [2005] SGCA 2. Has an agreement been reached or not? This is essentially a matter of language and intention, objectively ascertained. 75 Each of the automated confirmatory e-mail responses carried under Availability of product the notation call to enquire. 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. Needless to say, this goes to the very heart of the claims sustainability. The CISG has currently been adopted by 95 Contracting States world-wide. 92 The Electronics Transaction Act (Cap88, 1999Rev Ed) (ETA) places Internet contractual dealings on a firmer footing. This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. 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. As with any normal contract, Internet merchants have to be cautious how they present an advertisement, since this determines whether the advertisement will be construed as an invitation to treat or a unilateral contract. 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. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:25 ok but how come got such a good deal? It was found that the plaintiffs must have known or realised that the offer did not express the true intention of the defendants. If the defendant were right, they maintain, uncertainty would prevail in the commercial world and more particularly in Internet transactions. Limit orders: order to be executed only when the desired price is available. 85 Having stated the general rule, it is imperative that the rationale underlying this approach be understood. He is 32 years old and conducts his own network marketing business. In the recent case of Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd (2005), the Singapore Courts were provided with an opportunity to revisit the law concerning mistakes made in the formation of a contract, in particular, in the context of online contracts. Nor could he satisfactorily explain why he initially made the Internet searches to ensure the offer was genuine. Civil Procedure Pleadings . 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. The brief will discuss whether a tort of invasion of privacy should be developed by the courts. The issue in this case was whether the pricing was a mistake and if the contract would be fulfilled. This is without basis. The price of the laser printer, prior to 3.36pm on 8January 2003, was stipulated as $3,854 (exclusive of GST) on both the Digilandmall and HP websites (the websites), and as $3,448 on the Digiland commerce website. This is an inane argument. Two issues had arisen. By their own admission, they made Internet searches through various search engines to ascertain the profits they could make. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR 502: [2005] SGCA 2 Context: This Case deals with the issue of unilateral mistake. 148 The circumstances under which the orders were placed and the quantities sought to be purchased wholly undermine counsels variegated contentions that the plaintiffs lacked knowledge of or belief in the existence of a mistake. It is plain that the defendant had given careful consideration to this issue and was prepared to contract on the basis that it would be able to comply with any orders hence, there was no reference to any order being subject to stock availability.

James Condon Stradman Age, Tooling U Answer Key, Shophq Indigo Thread Clearance, Do Food Stamps Refill At Midnight Texas, Articles C