chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court

Secondly, widening the scope of mistake, unilateral or otherwise, under the rubric of equitable mistake will, with its malleability, only encourage uncertainty and litigation. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall Pte Ltd - LawTeacher.net It was the defendants computer system. Consideration was less than executory and non-existent. It cannot also be seriously argued that there was no intention to enter into a legal relationship. . They are tainted and unenforceable. I granted leave to both parties to file applications to amend the pleadings. I found their attempts to play down the impact of the statements which they had, to all intents and purposes, willingly and deliberately made earlier, unconvincing. Evidence was given that if phone calls were indeed placed, they would from time to time limit the number of sales. Articles 11 (1) Country Singapore. This rationalised the law and gives the court a broad discretion to fashion the applicable relief. 53 He claimed that seeing the same price on the Digilandmall website confirmed his view that there had been no mistake. Loose language may result in inadvertently establishing contractual liability to a much wider range of purchasers than resources permit. 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. One reason for this is the eternal tension faced by courts and judges alike in seeking a just equilibrium between commercial certainty and justice in a particular case. Mistakes are usually synonymous with the existence of carelessness on the part of the mistaken party. I hope by the time you see this email, the price is still at S$66.00 coz they might change it anytime. His own counsels description of him as careful and prudent only serves to corroborate this. I agree that this exception should be kept within a very narrow compass. com Pte Ltd30 that was primarily about unilateral mistake. 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. [emphasis added]. 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. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: This selection of essays, case summaries and dissertations is of relevance to law students within the Commonwealth and for those students who are studying the Rule of Law from outside the Commonwealth . Put another way, that decision seems to indicate that the effect of a unilateral mistake is only to render a contract unenforceable rather than void. He claimed he wanted to find out how much profit he could make. What is urged is that, owing to a common error as to some fundamental fact, the agreement is robbed of all efficacy. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594; [2004] SGHC 71. He appeared to be consummately familiar with Internet practices and was forced to concede that he thought it was weird and unusual when he saw the number 55 on the relevant webpages in place of the actual product description. It is, in large measure, determined by making an objective appraisal of the exchanges between the parties. Thus the task of ascertaining whether the parties have reached agreement as to the terms of a contract can involve quite a complex amalgam of the objective and the subjective and involve the application of a principle that bears close comparison with the doctrine of estoppel. This short but highly significant e-mail reads: Subject: IMPT HP Colour LaserJet going at only $66!! The argument is that, despite appearances, there is no real correspondence of offer and acceptance and that therefore the transaction must necessarily be void. A contract will not be concluded unless the parties are agreed as to its material terms. Leave was also given to the plaintiffs to adduce further evidence, if they so desired. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:25 ok but how come got such a good deal? 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. They then argue that as equitable defences have not been pleaded, the court has no alternative but to allow the claim. The rigour in limiting this scope is also critical to protect innocent third party rights that may have been acquired directly or indirectly. 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. While the first plaintiff was the source of the information concerning the price posting, the second plaintiff actively communicated with all of the plaintiffs (save the sixth plaintiff), throughout the material period. This contention is wholly untenable. CLARK, B. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. 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. If the defendant were right, they maintain, uncertainty would prevail in the commercial world and more particularly in Internet transactions. Promotions would be indicated by a P inside a yellow circle next to the product in question. 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 Why? 150 The plaintiffs have contended that this court ought to follow the decision in Taylor v Johnson and hold that the contract is not void under common law but voidable only in equity. He subsequently sent the web link to the Epinions website to the first and second plaintiffs. The third plaintiff informed him that laser printers were being sold at $66 each and that these laser printers could be sold at a much higher price about a thousand plus. Having ascertained that the laser printer was being advertised at $66, he decided to undertake further online searches through Yahoo.com and Ebay.com. In other words, he really wanted to ascertain the true price of the laser printer. 64 The fifth plaintiff was vague and tentative in many crucial aspects of his evidence. 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. Notwithstanding some real differences with posting, it could be argued cogently that the postal rule should apply to e-mail acceptances; in other words, that the acceptance is made the instant the offer is sent. 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. In submissions, his counsel attempted to play down the significance of both this conversation as well as the mass e-mail. CISG-online | CISG-online.org 10 News of the rather extraordinary laser printer pricing began to spread like wildfire within the local Internet community. Alternatively, knowledge may be readily inferred from what would be regarded as commonly known or notorious facts in the context of the transaction. It is significant that some of the plaintiffs had never made any prior Internet purchases before that eventful morning. The Instantaneous Transmission of Acceptances. 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. This is essentially a matter of language and intention, objectively ascertained. 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. Decisions cannot be reconciled and expressions, terminology and phraseology in different decisions mean different things to different courts and even judges within the same judicial systems. [2004] SGHC 71 - eLitigation 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. But it is difficult to see how that can apply here. They were clearly anxious to place their orders before the defendant took steps to correct the error. As a lawyer, he appears to have been indispensable in the plaintiffs attempts to hold the defendant to the bargain. At 4.16am he placed another order for one laser printer, by credit card, on the HP website. The recipients of this e-mail included the second, fourth, fifth plaintiffs and Tan Cheng Peng, the third plaintiffs girlfriend. PDF E-commerce Contract For Sale Of Printers Held Void For Obvious Mistake Pages 74 Ratings 100% (5) 5 out of 5 people found this document helpful; 1 In the early hours of the morning of 13January 2003, six friends, the plaintiffs in this case, placed orders over the Internet for 1,606 sophisticated Hewlett Packard commercial laser printers (the laser printer(s)). 3 All six plaintiffs are graduates, conversant with the usage of the Internet and its practices and endowed with more than an adequate understanding of business and commercial practices. If stock of a product has been exhausted, a prospective purchaser cannot sue for specific performance or damages as he has merely made an offer that has not been accepted by the merchant. A court is not likely to take a sympathetic view of such manner of amendment. The quintessential approach of the law is to preserve rather than to undermine contracts. The question is what is capable of displacing that apparent agreement. Being fully conscious of the pivotal nature of this point, I have duly accorded particular attention to the evidence and credibility of each of the plaintiffs. in the High Court decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd,2 from the perspective of economics. 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. 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 Because it was simply a matter of time before the error would inevitably be noticed and the pricing inevitably corrected. 89 In the circumstances, I had little hesitation in allowing the amendments sought by the defendant. Is this a case of poetic justice? Unilateral Mistake at . 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. Indeed, the time may have come for the common law to shed the pretence of searching for consideration to uphold commercial contracts. (PDF) Intention to Create Legal Relations and the Reform of Contract 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. 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. This is an online dating and match-making service. 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. Comments Published in English: [2004] 2 SLR 594; [2004] SGHC 71. 101 RSS Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Expand/Collapse. Notwithstanding, the defendant does not take issue with this as the sixth plaintiffs orders were received and the appropriate automated responses generated. Despite the general views expressed in. See now, also, The mere fact that they suddenly engage in predatory and atypical behaviour may in itself be telling. The neutral citation of the case Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd is as follows: This citation tells us that this was the 71st case in 2004 decided in the Singapore High Court. Limit orders: order to be executed only when the desired price is available. The following excerpts are particularly relevant: Desmond: 13/01/20 01:17 go hp online now. E-mails are processed through servers, routers and Internet service providers. It can be persuasively argued that e-mails involving transactions embraced by the Convention are only effective on reaching the recipient. 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. Bulletin_11_2009 - CLJLaw In accordance with s15(1) of the ETA, acceptance would be effective the moment the offer enters that node of the network outside the control of the originator. As most web merchants have automated software responses, they need to ensure that such automated responses correctly reflect their intentions from an objective perspective. Though he initially denied this in cross-examination, he had to accept this when confronted with his own e-mail as irrefutable evidence. 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. High Court and Court of Appeal, recently, in a number of case . Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] SGCA 2 Civil Procedure Costs , Civil Procedure Pleadings , Contract Mistake Decision Date: 13 Jan 2005 . Indeed this appears to be the underlying rationale for the unique legal characteristics attributed to an invitation to treat; see Grainger & Son v Gough [1896] AC 325 at 333334, Esso Petroleum Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1976] 1All ER 117 at 126. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] - YouTube In support of the latter it might be argued that unlike a posting, e-mail communication takes place in a relatively short time frame. 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. 47 Not content with making his own purchases, he woke up his brother and transacted 330 units on his behalf. In turn, the ICQ chat session involving the first plaintiff and the respective plaintiffs exchange of e-mails played a significant role in undermining their credibility and claims. In Canada, the latter suffices. The number of orders he placed was nothing short of brazen. There are two types of orders relevant: market orders and limit orders. 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. One is hard put to imagine that anyone would purchase such an item, let alone place very substantial orders, without making some very basic enquiries as to pricing. Indeed, in difficult cases, the courts in several common law jurisdictions have gone to extraordinary lengths to conjure up consideration. He graduated with an accounting degree from NTU. There are in this connection two schools of thought. He claims visiting, 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings. He seemed to suggest that in a number of cases going as far back as Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3App Cas 459, the contracts in issue therein should be treated as only being voidable in equity: see Solle v Butcher at 692, Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 198 at 207 and dicta in Magee v Pennine Insurance Co Ltd [1969] 2 QB 507 at 514 where he opined that: A common mistake, even on a most fundamental matter, does not make a contract void at law: but it makes it voidable in equity.

Dr De Kock Toowoomba, How Long Does Moderna Vaccine Side Effects Last, Romantic Carriage Ride Williamsburg Va, Heartland Ecsi Customer Service, Articles C