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. The point is, there is a chasm between a clarification amendment and a new or distinct issue being raised at a later stage. Certain Internet service providers provide the technology to inform a sender that a message has not been properly routed. Notwithstanding, the defendant does not take issue with this as the sixth plaintiffs orders were received and the appropriate automated responses generated. 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. Though the six plaintiffs accounted for only 18 of these purchase orders, they figure prominently among the 11 individuals who ordered more than 50 laser printers. These statements are not to be interpreted as a clarion call to rewrite commercial agreements because of a partys unreasonable or ignoble behaviour. The case of Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3All ER 566 is incontrovertibly the leading authority in this area. 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. However, not all principles will or can apply in the same manner that they apply to traditional paper-based and oral contracts. 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. 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. There are in this connection two schools of thought. 147 It is improper for a party who knows, believes or ought, objectively speaking, to have known of a manifest error to seek commercial benefit from such an error. June Proctor, 1997, p. 13. 156 The plaintiffs claims are dismissed. 60 Prior to placing his order, he was again contacted by the second plaintiff. 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. 122 For now it appears that a mistaken party can have two bites at the cherry. 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. Chwee Kin Keong Vs | PDF - Scribd An FAQ guide to electronic contracts in Singapore - Lexology Indeed, the time may have come for the common law to shed the pretence of searching for consideration to uphold commercial contracts. Inflexible and mechanical rules lead to injustice. The programme trigger on that website automatically and instantaneously initiated the insertion of similar contents onto all three websites. There must be consensus ad idem. He subsequently sent the web link to the Epinions website to the first and second plaintiffs. When considering the appropriate rule to apply, it stands to reason that as between sender and receiver, the party who selects the means of communication should bear the consequences of any unexpected events. In a physical sale, the merchant can immediately turn down an offer to purchase a product that has been advertised; otherwise he may be inundated with offers he cannot justify. 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. Lord Griffiths in, 87 It appeared to me that the extract from, 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 (, 95 The known availability of stock could be an important distinguishing factor between a physical sale and an Internet transaction. 38 The second plaintiff came across as intelligent and resourceful. How could one seek to calculate the profit margin before finding out the true market price of the laser printer? It would be illogical to have different approaches for different product sales over the Internet. . Homestead Assets Sdn Bhd v. Contramec . Alarm bells would have sounded immediately. In effect the Internet conveniently integrates into a single screen traditional advertising, catalogues, shop displays/windows and physical shopping. I even went to both the HP Web-Site as well as the DigilandMall Web-site to see if the prices were the same. In doing so, they appear to have also conflated equitable and common law concepts. From time to time they communicate with each other via the Internet and the short messaging system (sms). 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. 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. 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. Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594; [2004] SGHC 71 Suit No: Suit 202/2003/E Decision Date: 12 Apr 2004 Court: High Court Coram: V K Rajah JC Counsel: Tan Sok Ling, Malcolm Tan and Mohan Das Vijayaratnam (Tan S L and Partners) for plaintiffs, Philip Fong Yeng Fatt and Doris Chia Ming Lai (Harry Elias 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. It has been a fertile source of academic debate, but in practice it has given rise to a handful of cases that have merely emphasised the confusion of this area of our jurisprudence. [emphasis added]. Her evidence was inconsequential and did not assist the plaintiffs. (2d) Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall [2004 ] SGHC 71 30 Tan Wei Teck is 30 years old. Forming an Agreement, Offer and Acceptance Flashcards | Quizlet Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd,( [2005]SGCA 2 ) . Upon accessing the Digilandmall website and confirming that the printer was offered there at $66 as well, he placed a further order for 25 laser printers through that website at about 3.29am. 123 One view maintains that the mistaken party can either attempt to have the contract declared void at common law if the mistake is fundamental or radical, or alternatively seek a remedy in equity, which could include rescission. He conducted the searches to ascertain what the laser printers true price was. Despite their familial relationship, the legal relationship between the two of them was that of agent and principal. It became apparent that the plaintiffs misplaced reliance on the extract earlier cited probably also explained their singularly odd conduct in applying for amendments, only to withdraw their application later in attempting to deny the defendant an opportunity to amend its pleadings. 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. He was also involved in initiating the Channel NewsAsia report (see [78] and [79] infra). 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. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:33 as many as I can! Nor is it disputed that Samuel Teo, or any of the other employees of the defendant, was unaware at all material times of the dramatic chain of events so unwittingly initiated by the former. The bites, however, may taste quite different and cause different sensations. This is essentially a matter of language and intention, objectively ascertained. E-mails are processed through servers, routers and Internet service providers. 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. The purpose of the amendments was merely to regularise the pleadings and indeed they went no further than to summarise evidence and submissions that had already been raised. 35 In addition to these conversations, the second plaintiff also accessed the Epinions website and sent a related e-mail to the first plaintiff. I agree that this exception should be kept within a very narrow compass. In the High Court, the learned judge ("the Judge") decided, in the main, in favour of the Purchaser. Counsels approach is flawed. There is one important exception to this principle. Basic principles of contract law continue to prevail in contracts made on the Internet. "Unilateral Mistake in Law and Equity: Solle v Butcher Reinstated" by Offer and acceptance - The analysis is structured around the After all, what would he do with 100 obsolete commercial laser printers? 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. Chwee Kin Keong vs Digilandmall.com In Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, one of the defendant's employees mistakenly uploaded the contents of a training template onto the defendant's website, resulting in the retail price of S$3,854 for a commercial laser printer on the website being replaced with the figure S$66. When pressed as to whether he visited other websites, he said he could not confirm that one way or the other. Different protocols may result in messages arriving in an incomprehensible form. 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. Singapore Court of Appeal. The defendant even had its terms and conditions posted on its website. 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. The CISG has currently been adopted by 95 Contracting States world-wide. There cannot be any legitimate expectation of enforcement on the part of the non-mistaken party seeking to take advantage of appearances. This constituted more than a quarter of the total number of laser printers ordered. 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. 85 Having stated the general rule, it is imperative that the rationale underlying this approach be understood. Administration law is the actions made by a government, which adversely affects an individual. They were clearly anxious to place their orders before the defendant took steps to correct the error. The court found that parties when . six plaintiffs ordered 1,606 printers. 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. Mistakes that negative consent do not inexorably result in contracts being declared void. It was listed at the price of $66, when it was advertised on the official HP website for $3,854. Chwee Kin Keong and others v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. [2004] SGHC 71. He is 32 years old and conducts his own network marketing business. 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. He made Internet search enquiries as to whether the printer model existed and at what price it could be resold. 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. 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. Interestingly, Desmond also remarked to the first plaintiff that he wasnt greedy before I tok to u. Similar works. Web Communication: A Review Of Chwee Kin Keong And Others v. Digilandmall.com pte ltd by Rokiah Kadir [2009] 8 CLJ xxi. "Unilateral Mistake at Common Law and in Equity" by Kelvin Fatt Kin LOW They were high-end commercial laser printers. 89 In the circumstances, I had little hesitation in allowing the amendments sought by the defendant. 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. The first plaintiffs riposte, should such a situation come to pass, was to sue them lor. 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. Taking into account the nature of the claims, the conduct of these proceedings by the plaintiffs and how the case for the plaintiffs unravelled, it would not, all things considered, be appropriate to interfere with the normal order of costs which ought to follow the result. Section13 of the ETA deems that a message by a partys automated computer system originates from the party itself. It had consciously not inserted any limits to the number of products a buyer could purchase again, quite clearly, to solicit more business. 120 The widening of jurisdiction to embrace a broad equitable jurisdiction could well encourage litigious behaviour and promote uncertainty. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:17 what hp online?? In that sense, it is akin to ordinary posting. Cases of fraud and misrepresentation, and undue influence, are all catered for under other existing and uncontentious equitable rules. It is axiomatic that normal contractual principles apply but the contractual permutations will obviously be sometimes more complex and spread over a greater magnitude of transactions. The defendant was entitled to stake its entire defence on the basis of common law, though it would have been prudent ex abundanti cautela to have asserted the equitable position in the alternative. The terms of the offer are clear and unambiguous and the offeree accepts the offer according to its true sense, but it must have been obvious (and known by the offeree) that the offeror did not intend to make an offer in those terms. The affidavits did not add anything new. 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. Ltd. has the makings of a student's classic for several reasons, including: 1. be rebutted" (per Salmon LJ in Jones v. Padavatton (1969)). Court Judgement chwee kin keong and others digilandmall.com pte ltd slr sghc 71 suit no: suit decision 12 apr 2004 date: court: coram: counsel: high court rajah Skip to document Ask an Expert Sign inRegister Sign inRegister Home Ask an ExpertNew My Library Discovery Institutions London School of Business and Finance SAA Global Education u think this is the 1970s?? This could account for the substantial number of Canadian cases in this area of the law. 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. 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. (See for example the approach in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1990] 1AllER 512.) 137 Furthermore, from the evidence adduced, it became clear that the defendant had intentionally put the words call to enquire instead of, say, the phrase subject to stock availability in an attempt to entice would-be purchasers to place orders with them. This rationalised the law and gives the court a broad discretion to fashion the applicable relief. Prior to being self-employed, he was a corporate banker with Standard Chartered Bank, Singapore, for four years. This view seems to suggest that principles of equity invariably provide an equally strong but more elastic second string to the bow. While they did not invariably admit that their searches were made prior to each of the respective transactions, it was plain that they did not tell the whole truth about, 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. Certainty in commercial transactions should not be trifled with, as this will inevitably affect how commercial and business exchanges are respected and effected. It is significant that some of the plaintiffs had never made any prior Internet purchases before that eventful morning. 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. There can be no other reasonable explanation. 13 The first plaintiff, Chwee Kin Keong, is 29 years old. 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. Normally the contract is only concluded when the acceptance is communicated by the offeree to the offeror. The elements of an offer and acceptance are, 139 Next, the defendant contends that no consideration passed from the plaintiffs to them. Administrative Law in Common Law Countries. After receiving the e-mail from the first plaintiff, he visited the relevant HP website pages. PDF CISG-online | CISG-online.org Law, Fairness and Economics - Unilateral Mistake in Digilandmall (PDF) Intention to Create Legal Relations and the Reform of Contract This may be too high a price to pay in this area of the law. He somewhat muddied the authority of his observations by apparently accepting in Gallie v Lee [1969] 2 Ch 17 at 33 (affirmed on appeal in Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1971] AC 1004) that in Cundy v Lindsay there was no contract at all. As a lawyer, he appears to have been indispensable in the plaintiffs attempts to hold the defendant to the bargain. The element of constructive knowledge based upon what a reasonable person ought to know is premised upon that person not being conscious of the error. In addition, each of the confirmatory e-mail responses states at the outset: [W]e will be calling you in the near future to deliver the products to the address shown below. 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. After the defendant intimated that it would not be delivering the laser printer, he sent an e-mail excoriating it, asserting, inter alia: Myself, and other people who have been disappointed by you decision, will definitely spread word of the companys lack of honour and integrity to everyone we know and all over the internet! 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 Indeed, in difficult cases, the courts in several common law jurisdictions have gone to extraordinary lengths to conjure up consideration. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:44 if they dont honor it Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:45 sell me one lah name your price ;-) sue them lor , Desmond: 13/01/20 01:45 I think they will give vouchers or special deals. Chwee Kin K eong and others . Be that as it may, the fifth plaintiff, soon after he received MsTohs research, shared the information with the second and third plaintiffs. The payment mode opted for was cash on delivery. The elements of an offer and acceptance are ex facie satisfied in every transaction asserted in the plaintiffs claims. Given its global reach and ever changing technological advancements, Internet usage will pose a myriad of issues for resolution. 70 The third plaintiff proceeded to place orders on behalf of the sixth plaintiff on the HP website. When pressed why he asked MsToh to do this research, the fifth plaintiffs response was unsatisfactory. Has an agreement been reached or not? 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. A viewer from any part of the world may want to enter into a contract to purchase a product as advertised. 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. Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v DBS Bank Ltd and another appeal and another The price for equitable justice is uncertainty. 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. His evidence pertaining to the material points of knowledge and his communications with the other plaintiffs lacked credibility. 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. This, in a nutshell, is the issue at the heart of these proceedings. [2006] SGHC 222 - eLitigation From time to time there will be cases where this is an overriding consideration. Has an agreement been reached or not? 96 In an Internet sale, a prospective purchaser is not able to view the physical stock available. MrTan said: As long as we get out [sic] equitable compensation, we should be able to accept lesser terms, but thats just under consideration as well.. How do I Locate Case Law?: Case Names & Citations Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Case - 1840 Words | Bartleby Document Citado por Relacionados. The defendants wanted to sell some hare skins to the plaintiffs. Abstract. In addition, he despatched e-mails to the fourth and fifth plaintiffs attaching a hyperlink to the HP website. The question is what is capable of displacing that apparent agreement. A court is not likely to take a sympathetic view of such manner of amendment. Computer glitches can cause transmission failures, garbled information or even change the nature of the information transmitted. The High Court of Australia in Taylor v Johnson purportedly relied on Solle v Butcher, Bell v Lever Brothers, Limited [1932] AC 161, McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84CLR 377, all cases of common mistake, to suggest that in unilateral mistake a contracting party cannot assert, by relying on his own mistake, that a contract is void, notwithstanding the issue is fundamental or known to the other side. Where common mistake is pleaded, the presence of agreement is admitted. He admitted in cross-examination to being the lawyer for this group of people when they had questions like these in the present proceedings. The brief will discuss whether a tort of invasion of privacy should be developed by the courts. Having said that, this exception must always be prudently invoked and judiciously applied; the exiguous scope of this exception is necessary to give the commercial community confidence that commercial transactions will almost invariably be honoured when all the objective contractual indicia are satisfied. This is in contrast to the English position where after several decades Hartog v Colin & Shields still remains the locus classicus.

Where Is The Cape Cod Irish Village Moving To, Arocep Ultra Bleach Safety Data Sheet, Charles City, Va Obituaries, Monstera Fuzzy Roots, Articles C