u think this is the 1970s?? As a lawyer, he appears to have been indispensable in the plaintiffs attempts to hold the defendant to the bargain. Theoretically the supply of information is limitless. 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. They were selling a HP laser printer and an employee accidently made a mistake as to the price of the printer on their website. Given his professional and business background, he must have realised that the $66 price posting on the HP website was an error. in the High Court decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd,2 from the perspective of economics. 107 As the law now stands, mistakes that are not fundamental or which do not relate to an essential term do not vitiate consent. The case went before both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. In this case, there was no consensus ad idem or meeting of the minds between the parties, which meant that there could be no binding contract between them. The question is what is capable of displacing that apparent agreement. Certainly, none of them had ever been induced to conduct transactions on such a scale on the Internet for any product, let alone sophisticated commercial laser printers. 73 The sixth plaintiffs orders did not receive matching confirmations from the defendant as his e-mail box was full. Such errors can be magnified almost instantaneously and may be harder to detect than if made in a face to face transaction or through physical document exchanges. 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. Though he initially denied this in cross-examination, he had to accept this when confronted with his own e-mail as irrefutable evidence. Phang, Controversy in Common Mistake [2003] Conv 247; Reynolds, Reconsider the Contract Textbooks (2003) 119LQR 177. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd,( [2005]SGCA 2 ) . All previous discussions and negotiations between the parties proceeded on the basis of the price being fixed at so much per piece. The number of orders he placed was nothing short of brazen. 35 In addition to these conversations, the second plaintiff also accessed the Epinions website and sent a related e-mail to the first plaintiff. 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. I found his entire evidence relating to his communication with the first and other plaintiffs unsatisfactory and in many aspects incredulous. http://www.epinions.com/HP_Color_LaserJet_4600_Series_Printer_Printers. Ltd} has the makings of a student's classic for several rea sons: it presents a textbook example of offer and acceptance; it is set in the context On any objective construction, the presumed intention must be that in the context of its confirmatory content, the words call to enquire in the availability portion of the contract related to the timing of the delivery rather than being subject to physical availability of the laser printer or stock. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:46 hahahaha yeah lor .. aiyah why u only buy 3????? There are two types of orders relevant: market orders and limit orders. Certain Internet service providers provide the technology to inform a sender that a message has not been properly routed. 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. 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 After establishing from the web pages that the price quoted for the laser printer was indeed $66, he proceeded to make searches through search engines like Yahoo and visited the website of Hardware.com. The first, second and third plaintiffs have been friends for a long time and are bound by common business interests. 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. When pressed as to whether he visited other websites, he said he could not confirm that one way or the other. He said he had by then discovered from his Internet searches that the price of the laser printer was in the region of $3,000. Keywords Contract Online Store Mistake Pricing Mistake Citation The rationale for this is that a court will not sanction a contract where there is no, 150 The plaintiffs have contended that this court ought to follow the decision in, A thread runs through our contract law that effect must be given to, 152 This view has also found support in the Singapore context. The modern approach in contract law requires very little to find the existence of consideration. The rules of offer and acceptance are satisfied and the parties are of one mind. 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. 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. Articles 11 (1) Country Singapore. 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. 7191 RSS High Court Expand/Collapse. A court will not enforce the plaintiffs purported contracts even if they are not void. Given its global reach and ever changing technological advancements, Internet usage will pose a myriad of issues for resolution. - See also Balfour v. Balfour (1919). Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Case law Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmallcom Pte Ltd suggests that General Rule. In some unusual circumstances where a unilateral mistake exists, the law can find a contract on terms intended by the mistaken party. Yong Pung HowCJ in Tribune Investment Trust Inc v Soosan Trading Co Ltd [2000] 3 SLR 405 at [40] opined: [T]he function of the court is to try as far as practical experience allows, to ensure that the reasonable expectations of honest men are not disappointed. The defendant has expressly pleaded unilateral mistake. 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. The Canadian and Australian cases have moved along with the eddies of unconscionability. 25 The mass e-mail at 2.58am is cursorily dismissed by counsel for the plaintiffs as poor use of language that ought not to be taken literally in light of the early hours of the morning. 55 The fourth plaintiff is technologically savvy and runs an Internet business with the second plaintiff. 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. This, by an uncanny coincidence, was the same person whom he had intended to consult in the resale of the laser printers a topic that he had discussed with the second plaintiff earlier that morning. 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. There is often, but not inexorably, a co-relationship between the timing when the amendment is sought and the adverse consequences for the other party. The case of Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3All ER 566 is incontrovertibly the leading authority in this area. 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. 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" . 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 . If an offeree understands an offer in accordance with its natural meaning and accepts it, the offeror cannot be heard to say that he intended the words of his offer to have a different meaning. V K Rajah JC. 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. Lord Phillips of Worth MatraversMR observed in a withering analysis at [156], [157], [160] and [161]: Thus the premise of the equitys intrusion into the effects of the common law is that the common law rule in question is seen in the particular case to work injustice, and for some reason the common law cannot cure itself. This is in contrast to the English position where after several decades Hartog v Colin & Shields still remains the locus classicus. These statements are not to be interpreted as a clarion call to rewrite commercial agreements because of a partys unreasonable or ignoble behaviour. What is urged is that, owing to a common error as to some fundamental fact, the agreement is robbed of all efficacy. The second plaintiff made an enquiry as to the terms and conditions governing purchases through the HP website while the fifth plaintiff was perusing the conditions of the Digilandmall website. The later the amendment, the greater the adverse consequences. 133 It is however clear that the law should not take cognisance of bad bargains and misapprehension that do not affect a fundamental or essential aspect of a contractual relationship. 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!! 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. This gives their courts a broad and elastic jurisdiction to deal with commercially inappropriate behaviour. A number of them have very close relationships, with some of them even sharing common business interests. - This is also the position as regards friends: see Coward v. MIB (1963). First, it is clear that the line of Australian and Canadian cases have broadened their equitable jurisdiction on the strength of dicta attributable principally to Lord Denning. He holds an accounting degree from NTU. It was the defendants computer system. It is important not to force into a Procrustean bed principles that have to be modified or discarded when considering novel aspects of the Internet. The e-mails sent at 2.34am were also captioned Go load it now! 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.com (2005) - Singaporean case 3d printers sold for $66 instead of $3,800. The first plaintiff introduced him to the other plaintiffs. Although a mistaken party will not often be able to discharge the onus of showing that the other party knew or must have known that he or she intended terms different from the terms of the offer or acceptance, it is not a necessary element that the party seeking to enforce the contract has actively contributed to the others mistake. 85 Having stated the general rule, it is imperative that the rationale underlying this approach be understood. I do not know if this is an error or whether HP will honour this purchase. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Is this a case of poetic justice? 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. How come got such thing? 26 I respectfully agree with the reasoning of ShawJ in Can-Dive Services Ltd v Pacific Coast Energy Corp (1995), 21CLR(2d) 39 (BCSC), where he said at 69-70 that: While I agree with what Madam Justice Mclachlin said so far as it goes, I do not believe she intended to imply that there must be a conscious taking advantage by one party of the other in all cases. 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 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. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594; [2004] SGHC 71. It is not in dispute that the defendant made a genuine error. The plaintiffs were not being candid when they portrayed very limited exchanges between themselves, dealing allegedly with only the profits to be made and their ability to resell the laser printers. Palm tree justice will only serve to inject uncertainty into the law. While these contentions were well within the scope of the evidence adduced and their respective lines of cross-examination, they appeared to transgress their respective pleadings. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:33 how many u intend to get? This is an inane argument. 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. 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. It deals with the process rather than the substance of how to divine the rule. The defendant, Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, were an online IT company that sold related software and hardware from Singapore. six plaintiffs ordered 1,606 printers. The recipient rule appears to be the logical default rule. 13 The first plaintiff, Chwee Kin Keong, is 29 years old. After placing his second order, he admitted making further searches on the Internet to fortify my view that the price of the $66 per printer was not a mistake He was also the only plaintiff who placed an order on the Digilandmall website. He received this information through an sms message. 66 The fifth plaintiff also gave evidence that the next morning, when he logged on his computer, he noted that a Hong Kong lawyer friend, Coral Toh, was also logged onto her computer. The point is, there is a chasm between a clarification amendment and a new or distinct issue being raised at a later stage. Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp. [1955] 2 Q.B. The amounts ordered and the hurried and hasty manner in which the orders were executed are of cardinal importance. This was summarily resolved. Promotions would be indicated by a P inside a yellow circle next to the product in question. It will firstly discuss the fact that such a tort Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Court reference 202 of 2003. The reach of and potential response(s) to such an advertisement are however radically different. 327. The plaintiffs attempted to take advantage of the defendants mistake over the Internet. 7 At about 3.36pm, Samuel Teo, an employee of DIL, inadvertently uploaded the contents of the training template onto the Digiland commerce website operated by DIL, in place of the test website allocated for the training. The object of the exercise is to determine what each party intended, or must be deemed to have intended. The unconstrained exchange that followed between the two is both revealing and compelling. He has incorporated an Internet business Dreamcupid in which the second plaintiff has an interest.
Christendom College Racism, Kelso, Washington Obituaries, Belfast International Airport Passes And Permits, Light Of My Life Walkthrough Pdf, Authors Who Died In The Last 10 Years, Articles C