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. V K Rajah JC: Para continuar leyendo. 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. 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. 135 The defendant however asserts that there were no concluded contracts with any of the plaintiffs on a number of grounds. The defendant has expressly pleaded unilateral mistake. (See for example the approach in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1990] 1AllER 512.) He was also a partner in what is described as a printing business. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. These orders were placed at a price of S$66 each, whereas the actual price was S$3,854 each. They have taken into account both the English and Australian authorities in distilling the jurisprudence in this area. The credit card payments had not been processed. 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. 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. Articles 11 (1) Country Singapore. There are, however, other sound reasons to argue against such a rule in favour of the recipient rule. 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. The reason for this inconsistent conduct surfaced later. The evidence incontrovertibly indicates that the first plaintiff himself entertained this view for the entire period he was in communication with the second and third plaintiffs. The decision ofV.K. This is a case about predatory pack hunting. 136 First, it was suggested that no contracts had been formed as all the contracts were subject to availability and that a failure to adhere to the directive call to enquire prevented the contracts from coming into existence. 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. High Court Suit No 202 of 2003. The plaintiffs could not coherently explain why neither they nor their lawyers had not attempted to correct the press reports at the material juncture. Clout issue 43. 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. In the final analysis, it would appear that the likely existence of an internal error in pricing was clearly within his contemplation. 3. Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp. [1955] 2 Q.B. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:24 just ordered 3 colour lazer printer for S$66.00 each. Indeed, in difficult cases, the courts in several common law jurisdictions have gone to extraordinary lengths to conjure up consideration. The decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in, 25 The law of mistake was discussed in depth by McLachlinCJBC in. 69 The sixth plaintiff was awakened by his brother, the third plaintiff, at about 3.00am. 18 He said he later conducted some searches using the Google search engine and ascertained that the laser printer could be sold at about US$1,300 in certain markets. They were clearly anxious to place their orders before the defendant took steps to correct the error. If the defendant were right, they maintain, uncertainty would prevail in the commercial world and more particularly in Internet transactions. The elements of an offer and acceptance are, 139 Next, the defendant contends that no consideration passed from the plaintiffs to them. [2005] 1 SLR (R) Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd 507 printers. The payment mode selected by the third plaintiff was cash on delivery. Their reference to arbitraging was a nebulous fig leaf designed to legitimise their conduct in a cloak of legal and commercial respectability. I was neither impressed nor convinced. So its going to be our reputation at stake, we thought we had a successful transaction.. Chwee Kin Keong vs Digilandmall.com - Free download as Powerpoint Presentation (.ppt / .pptx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or view presentation slides online. NZULR, vol. 44 He made his first purchase of ten laser printers at about 2.42am. Added to his own purchases of 760 units, he was effectively responsible for the purchase of 1,090 laser printers. The defendant also sells HP products on its own website at http://www.digiland.com (the Digilandmall website). But it is difficult to see how that can apply here. 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. This is a disingenuous contention that desperately attempts to palliate their conduct in the subject transactions. There is however much to be said in favour of rationalising the law of mistake under a single doctrine incorporating the best elements of common law and equity. 119 It is apparent from this overview that the Canadian courts have integrated through their equitable jurisdiction the concept of common law mistake within the rubric of unconscionability. Slade, in a well reasoned article written not long after, 128 The most significant judicial pronouncement supporting this view emanates from the recent English Court of Appeal in, 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. There was also no indication that the product was being sold on promotion. The E-Mail Acceptance Rule. It stands to reason that if a party shuts its eyes to the obvious, the party is being neither honest nor reasonable, and ought to be affixed with knowledge. 78 In a Channel NewsAsia report datelined 15January 2003, it was reported that: Two of the customers, Mark Yeow and Malcolm Tan, have already spoken to their lawyers. The argument is that, despite appearances, there is no real correspondence of offer and acceptance and that therefore the transaction must necessarily be void. 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. Added to his own purchases of 760 units, he was effectively responsible for the purchase of 1,090 laser printers. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594; [2004] SGHC 71. 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?? David Baxter Edward Thomas and Peter Sandford Gander v BPE Solicitors (a firm) [2010] EWHC 306 (Ch) Dunlop v Higgins (1848) 1 HLC 381. No cash had been collected. The second issue was raised by me and touched upon contentions made by both parties in their written submissions. 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. Arrival can also be immaterial unless a recipient accesses the e-mail, but in this respect e-mail does not really differ from mail that has to be opened. The knowledge that the offer is not meant according to its literal terms simply displaces the objective theory of contract. . June Proctor, 1997, p. 13. SingletonJ held at 568: The offer was wrongly expressed, and the defendants by their evidence, and by the correspondence, have satisfied me that the plaintiff could not reasonably have supposed that that offer contained the offerers real intention. They were selling a HP laser printer and an employee accidently made a mistake as to the price of the printer on their website.. Cases The initial order for 30 laser printers was placed at round 3.45am while the second order for 300 units was placed at around 3.53am. There is however much to be said in favour of rationalising the law of mistake under a single doctrine incorporating the best elements of common law and equity. The fact that it may have been negligent is not a relevant factor in these proceedings. 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 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. [emphasis added]. Abstract. The fact that the acceptance was automatically generated by a computer software cannot in any manner exonerate the defendant from responsibility. The leading Canadian decision in this area is the case of McMaster University v Wilchar Construction Ltd (1971) 22DLR(3d) 9 which, incidentally, was cited with approval by the Australian High Court in Taylor v Johnson. Case law Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmallcom Pte Ltd suggests that General Rule. In common mistake, both parties make the same mistake. Though both of them admit to having had discussions about the website terms and conditions governing the purchases, they deny that there was any discussion between them on even the possibility of an error having taken place. The first and fifth appellants each ordered a hundred printers, while the other appellants ordered more than a hundred printers each. [2005] 1 SLR(R) Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall Pte Ltd 521. whether constructive knowledge by a non-mistaken party of the mistake would suffice to vitiate the contract ab initio. 7191 RSS High Court Expand/Collapse. 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 . [emphasis added]. It had consciously not inserted any limits to the number of products a buyer could purchase again, quite clearly, to solicit more business. Court reference 202 of 2003. It is not in dispute that the defendant made a genuine error. There cannot be any legitimate expectation of enforcement on the part of the non-mistaken party seeking to take advantage of appearances. 5 A related website for corporate clients and re-sellers (the Digiland commerce website) is owned and operated by a related entity, Digiland International Limited (DIL). In the light of that consideration we can see no way that Solle v Butcher can stand with Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. Leave was also given to the plaintiffs to adduce further evidence, if they so desired. 125 The principal source of this view has been Lord DenningMR. Therefore, administrative law encompasses Is the Right to Privacy Adequately Protected? It appears that it wanted to leave no stone unturned and had therefore mounted a root and branch attack on the plaintiffs claims. I would not however invariably equate the required conduct with fraud. He graduated from NTU as a bachelor of business studies, specialising in financial analysis. Despite the general views expressed in. Cory had chosen this mode of communication; therefore he Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. 92 The Electronics Transaction Act (Cap88, 1999Rev Ed) (ETA) places Internet contractual dealings on a firmer footing. This constituted more than a quarter of the total number of laser printers ordered. 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. 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. The elements of an offer and acceptance are ex facie satisfied in every transaction asserted in the plaintiffs claims. Market orders: order to be executed immediately at the best available price. Thus, 119 It is apparent from this overview that the Canadian courts have integrated through their equitable jurisdiction the concept of common law mistake within the rubric of unconscionability. There is no larger noble principle, such as the sanctity of contracts, to be observed or protected in these proceedings. [emphasis added]. There was no satisfactory reason for the genesis of this e-mail (see [67] infra). 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 The terms of the offer are clear and unambiguous and the offeree accepts the offer according to its true sense, Although a mistaken party will not often be able to discharge the onus of showing that the other party, 118 The Canadian courts have been the most active common law courts explicating and developing this area of the law. Where common mistake is pleaded, the presence of agreement is admitted. 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. If he was prepared to commit this view in writing to a larger circle of 54 friends and business associates, 47 Not content with making his own purchases, he woke up his brother and transacted 330 units on his behalf. In these proceedings, it appears that the purchases made by the sixth plaintiff were not accompanied by a corresponding receipt of acceptances, as his e-mail inbox was full. Document Citado por Relacionados. In such cases, it would be unconscionable to enforce the bargain and equity will set aside the contract. For example, in the Singapore High Court decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594 ("Digilandmall"), affirmed on appeal in Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR 502 without considering this particular issue, V K Rajah JC (as he then was) observed, as follows (at [139]): He claims visiting, 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings. Ltd. Yeo Tiong Min* I. 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. Voces del tesauro. This could account for the substantial number of Canadian cases in this area of the law. Amendments after conclusion of submissions. While it is possible that the reporters could have exercised some latitude in penning the reports, they would in essence be conveying, at the very least, summaries and impressions of their interviews with the second, third and fifth plaintiffs. Palm tree justice will only serve to inject uncertainty into the law. 89 In the circumstances, I had little hesitation in allowing the amendments sought by the defendant. This provision acknowledges that the essential framework of an electronic contract needs to be considered in the usual manner; in other words, principles of contract formation, consideration, terms and conditions, choice of law and jurisdictional issues need to be examined. Often the essence of good business is the use of superior knowledge. 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. These considerations take precedence over the culpability associated with causing the mistake. It is unequivocally unethical conduct tantamount to sharp practice. This, in a nutshell, is the issue at the heart of these proceedings. Landmark decision on unilateral mistake of fact in respect of the price of product listed on an online mall and the purchases made thereon . 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. From time to time there will be cases where this is an overriding consideration. It takes the view that there is no jurisdiction in equity to rescind a contract that is valid at common law, on the basis of mistake. Web merchants ought to ensure that they either contract out of the receipt rule or expressly insert salient terms within the contract to deal with issues such as a choice of law, jurisdiction and other essential terms relating to the passing of risk and payment. This short but highly significant e-mail reads: Subject: IMPT HP Colour LaserJet going at only $66!! 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. No harm trying right? Case name. 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). 111 In Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502 ("Chwee Kin Keong"), this court said at [101]: Under O 20 r 5(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed), the court may grant leave to amend a pleading at any stage of the proceedings. As part of its business, it operates a website owned by Hewlett Packard (HP) at, 16 When the first plaintiff eventually succeeded in accessing the HP website, he immediately placed an order for 100 laser printers at about, 17 Having called the second and third plaintiffs at about. In the High Court, the learned judge ("the Judge") decided, in the main, in favour of the Purchaser. 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. The marrow of contractual relationships should be the parties intention to create a legal relationship. 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. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Given that he left everything in the third plaintiffs hands, his legal position is, to that extent, identical to the third plaintiffs. It was found that the plaintiffs must have known or realised that the offer did not express the true intention of the defendants. 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 Canadian and Australian cases have moved along with the eddies of unconscionability. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:33 as many as I can! Interestingly, Desmond also remarked to the first plaintiff that he wasnt greedy before I tok to u. Altogether different considerations may arise if a party, at a late stage, seeks through an amendment to adduce further evidence to support that same amendment. The plaintiffs are, however, entitled to the cost of the amendments, in any event, which I fix at $1,000. 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. A court will not enforce the plaintiffs purported contracts even if they are not void. To that extent, his evidence that he subsequently dismissed the notion altogether is unacceptable. The web merchant, unless he qualifies his offer appropriately, by making it subject to the availability of stock or some other condition precedent, could be seen as making an offer to sell an infinite supply of goods. However, if the defendant did not have stock, it would immediately call the supplier and procure the products for the end-user. While a court of law does not sit as a court of commercial morality, it cannot lose sight of this central objective of contract law. HIGH COURT. What is urged is that, owing to a common error as to some fundamental fact, the agreement is robbed of all efficacy. 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. The rigour in limiting this scope is also critical to protect innocent third party rights that may have been acquired directly or indirectly. 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. The other school of thought views the approach outlined earlier with considerable scepticism. The decision of V.K. 117 It should be emphasised that this stream of authority is consistently recognised by all the major common law jurisdictions. He was also involved in initiating the Channel NewsAsia report (see [78] and [79] infra). The very foundations of predictability, certainty and efficacy, underpinning contractual dealings, will be undermined if the law and/or equity expands the scope of the mistake exception with alacrity or uncertainty. The defendants argued this pricing was a unilateral mistake and that the complainants took advantage of this. How come got such thing? Be that as it may, the fifth plaintiff, soon after he received MsTohs research, shared the information with the second and third plaintiffs. Pginas: 93: High Court - Suit n 202 of 2003. 153 These statements of jurisprudence are of cardinal importance in understanding and fashioning the law of contract. The essence of snapping up lies in taking advantage of a known or perceived error in circumstances which ineluctably suggest knowledge of the error.
East Lyme High School Graduation 2022, Mx Vs Atv All Out 500 2 Stroke Tune, Articles C