100 There is however another statute that ought to be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate default rule in e-commerce transactions. Because it was simply a matter of time before the error would inevitably be noticed and the pricing inevitably corrected. 43 After receiving a call from the first plaintiff at about 2.00am informing him that he had found an opportunity to make money as there was an arbitrage position to be achieved for some Hewlett Packard printers, the third plaintiff duly accessed his e-mail and visited the HP website. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:43 coz the HP laser colour printer sells for at least 3 to 4k outside, Desmond 13/01/20 01:44 from US I heard is about USD 2k, Desmond 13/01/20 01:44 its HP and Laser and Coloured. 22 The exchange between the first plaintiff and Desmond provides an intimate and revealing insight into the first plaintiffs thought process at the material time; the exchange fluctuated between bantering on the one hand, to nothing short of the candid exchange of thoughts on the other, revealing that the first plaintiff was fully aware of the likely existence of an error in pricing. 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. Landmark decision on unilateral mistake of fact in respect of the price of product listed on an online mall and the purchases made thereon . Desmond intimated that the defendant would give vouchers or special deals as a matter of equitable compensation should it not honour the purchase orders. The plaintiffs are, however, entitled to the cost of the amendments, in any event, which I fix at $1,000. The rules of offer and acceptance are satisfied and the parties are of one mind. 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. 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. 27-30 January; 2-6, 9 February; 13 March; 12 April 2004 . In doing so, they appear to have also conflated equitable and common law concepts. 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. 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 was also a partner in what is described as a printing business. 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. I invited both parties to indicate if they wished to amend their pleadings. This price was much lower than the actual retail price, and had been posted on the defendant's website by mistake. The credit card payments had not been processed. [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. The first plaintiffs riposte, should such a situation come to pass, was to sue them lor. Most telling of all, I note that the first to fifth plaintiffs exhibited identical reports in each of their affidavits without any qualification whatsoever. He offered to buy a laser printer from Desmond at double the price, that is $132. In the final analysis, it would appear that the likely existence of an internal error in pricing was clearly within his contemplation. v . Examples of such mistakes would include (a)human error (b)programming of software errors and (c)transmission problems in the communication systems. 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. 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 light of these general observations, I now address the law on unilateral mistake. I categorically reject their evidence in so far as it attempts to hermetically compartmentalise their knowledge and discussions. 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 actual or constructive knowledge of the mistaken pricing. Her evidence was inconsequential and did not assist the plaintiffs. He opted to pay for all his purchases by cash on delivery. As the Channel NewsAsia report so succinctly summarised they saw a great opportunity and grabbed it. Prior to this he was an associate in the Intellectual Property and Technology Department of Allen & Gledhill. If anything, certain portions of the affidavits raised even more doubts about the plaintiffs credibility. Notwithstanding, the defendant does not take issue with this as the sixth plaintiffs orders were received and the appropriate automated responses generated. Unilateral Mistake at . Further, the character of the mistake was such that any reasonable person similarly circumstanced as each of the plaintiffs would have had every reason to believe that a manifest error had occurred. Article24 of the Convention states: For the purposes of this Part of the Convention, an offer, declaration of acceptance or any other indication of intention reaches the addressee when it is made orally to him or delivered by any other means to him personally, to his place of business or mailing address or, if he does not have a place of business or mailing address, to his habitual residence. 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. It is not necessary to prove actual knowledge on the part of the non-mistaken party in order to ground relief, as in this context one is taken to have known what would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the light of the surrounding circumstances: Hartog v Colin and Shields [1939] AllER 566 (KBD); McMaster University; Stepps Investments, supra; Taylor, supra. 54 The fourth plaintiff admits that he had entertained the idea at the material time that the price posting could have been an error. Ltd.1 has the makings of a student's classic for several reasons: it presents a textbook . The same view is echoed in Halsburys Laws of Singapore vol7 (Butterworths Asia, 2000) at [80.164]. 47 Not content with making his own purchases, he woke up his brother and transacted 330 units on his behalf. 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. Palm tree justice will only serve to inject uncertainty into the law. This is essentially a matter of language and intention, objectively ascertained. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:33 how many u intend to get? This was not noticed by the company until over 4,000 printers were ordered. He confirmed through these searches that the usual price of the laser printers was in the region of US$2,000. I find it inconceivable, to say the least, that the fifth plaintiff would have placed an order for 100 laser printers without the conviction that it was in fact a current market model with a real and substantial resale value. Homestead Assets Sdn Bhd v. Contramec . He claims visiting, 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings. 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. He in effect forwarded the first plaintiffs e-mail to them. 34 He also visited the Digilandmall website to familiarise himself with their standard terms and conditions. The most recent and authoritative pronouncement in this area (per Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers in Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] 3 WLR 1371 at [123]) states: A contract is normally concluded when an offer made by one party (the offeror) is accepted by the party to whom the offer has been made (the offeree). Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Interestingly, Desmond also remarked to the first plaintiff that he wasnt greedy before I tok to u. In the Singapore context a similar approach has been adopted by the Court of Appeal in Aircharter World Pte Ltd v Kontena Nasional Bhd [1999] 3 SLR 1 at [30] and [31], and Projection Pte Ltd v The Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd [2001] 2 SLR 399 at [15]. Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004 . 120 The widening of jurisdiction to embrace a broad equitable jurisdiction could well encourage litigious behaviour and promote uncertainty. Solicita tu prueba. He claims visiting, inter alia, the Epinions and Hardwarezone websites, and though it appears that there was at the material time a discussion thread on the error on the Hardwarezone website, the fourth plaintiff denied having seen this. Civil Procedure Pleadings . When the defendant learnt of the error, it promptly removed the advertisement from its websites, and informed the plaintiffs as well as 778 others who had placed orders for a total of 4,086 laser printers that the price posting was an unfortunate error, and that it would therefore not be meeting the orders. 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. Samuel Teo had used all these notional numerals on the training template. 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. He graduated with an accounting degree from NTU. 101 RSS Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Expand/Collapse. The number of orders he placed was nothing short of brazen. 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 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. Abstract The decision of V.K. As a lawyer, he appears to have been indispensable in the plaintiffs attempts to hold the defendant to the bargain. 125 The principal source of this view has been Lord DenningMR. But it is difficult to see how that can apply here. This cannot be right. The complainants argued that they were not aware that this price was a mistake and wanted the binding contract to be fulfilled. The goods are not on offer but are said to be an invitation to treat. 101 The applicable rules in relation to transactions over the worldwide web appear to be clearer and less controversial. 138 Effectively, the defendant was attempting in this contention to assert that it could have its cake and eat it as well. Typical transactions are usually but not invariably characterised by (a)indecent alacrity; and (b)behaviour that any fair-minded commercial person similarly circumstanced would regard as a patent affront to commercial fairplay or morality. 13 The first plaintiff, Chwee Kin Keong, is 29 years old. 81 Plaintiffs counsel thereafter responded somewhat curiously. This contention is wholly untenable. He admitted in cross-examination to being the lawyer for this group of people when they had questions like these in the present proceedings. Where common mistake is pleaded, the presence of agreement is admitted. Comments Published in English: [2004] 2 SLR 594; [2004] SGHC 71. The issue could be critical where third party rights are in issue as in. Having expressed my views on consideration, I should also add for good measure that, in any event, there is ample consideration. There was no satisfactory reason for the genesis of this e-mail (see [67] infra). 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. Though he initially denied this in cross-examination, he had to accept this when confronted with his own e-mail as irrefutable evidence. The second issue was raised by me and touched upon contentions made by both parties in their written submissions. 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 case of Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3All ER 566 is incontrovertibly the leading authority in this area. This e-mail was sent only after the first plaintiff had made his own Internet searches on the pricing of the laser printer. The fourth plaintiffs single transaction with the Digilandmall website was confirmed by a similar automated response stating Successful Purchase Confirmation from Digilandmall. 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. CHWEE KIN KEONG v DIGILANDMALL.COM Pte Ltd (2005) SGCA 2. 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. I reject this. I do not know if this is an error or whether HP will honour this purchase. These statements are not to be interpreted as a clarion call to rewrite commercial agreements because of a partys unreasonable or ignoble behaviour. On the issue of his actual knowledge and communications with the other plaintiffs at the material time, I found his evidence unsatisfactory. I even went to both the HP Web-Site as well as the DigilandMall Web-site to see if the prices were the same. The reason for this inconsistent conduct surfaced later. 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. LOW, Kelvin Fatt Kin. In the context of its true market value the absurd price of $66 was almost the commercial equivalent of virtually giving away the laser printers. 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 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" . 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. . This is an online dating and match-making service. There is therefore no pre-condition in law for a mistaken party to show an absence of carelessness to avail himself of this defence; the law precludes a person from seeking to gain an advantage improperly in such circumstances. They have taken into account both the English and Australian authorities in distilling the jurisprudence in this area. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. He also called the first plaintiff to see if the latter had managed to successfully complete his purchase. Between 3.13am and 4.00am the second plaintiff revisited the website four times placing four further orders for 20 laser printers each time. 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. 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 purchase took place soon after the ICQ conversation with Desmond where Desmond had in no uncertain terms pitched the price of the laser printer between $3,000 to $4,000. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. He is currently self-employed and is intimately involved in the multi-level marketing sales of aromatherapy products under the Bel-Air label. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:42 I want at least one for personal use 2 would be good coz my gf needs one too any more than that would be a bonus ;-), Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:43 anyway, I dont mind buying over if you have frens who want to sell buy at twice the price!! He then zealously sent at about 2.58am, an e-mail to 54 persons, all of whom were friends and/or business associates. Offer and acceptances have to reach an intended recipient to be efective. The CISG has currently been adopted by 95 Contracting States world-wide. The recipients of this e-mail included the second, fourth, fifth plaintiffs and Tan Cheng Peng, the third plaintiffs girlfriend. Delivery was merely a timing issue. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. 11 The single most controversial issue in these proceedings is the knowledge possessed and/or belief entertained by each of the plaintiffs when they entered into each of the transactions for the purchase of the laser printers. 113 The English Court of Appeal in Commission for the New Towns v Cooper (Great Britain) Ltd [1995] Ch 259, a case of common mistake, imported the concept of Nelsonian knowledge and applied the framework of various categories of knowledge outlined by Peter GibsonJ in Baden v Societe Generale pour Favoriser le Developpement du Commerce et de lIndustrie en FranceSA [1993] 1 WLR 509. They assert that spending only $105,996 to procure laser printers with an actual market value of $6,189,524 is wholly irrelevant; they are entitled to a good bargain. The CISG has currently been adopted by 95 Contracting States world-wide. There must be consensus ad idem. When giving evidence, he struck me as cautious, taking great pains to convey the impression that his numerous online enquiries that morning were routinely carried out without any real inkling that an error had occurred. The contract stands according to the natural meaning of the words used. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. Despite the general views expressed in. 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. http://www.buy.hp.com.sg/hp/StandardProduct.cfm?prodid=HPC9960A. 93 Website advertisement is in principle no different from a billboard outside a shop or an advertisement in a newspaper or periodical. In Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd, the English Court of Appeal decided that Solle v Butcher was wrong to hold that there was an equitable doctrine of common mistakes. Be that as it may, the fifth plaintiff, soon after he received MsTohs research, shared the information with the second and third plaintiffs. It is asserted that since mistake had not been pleaded as an equitable defence, equity cannot be invoked by the defendant. This pricing was a mistake, which was fundamental to the contract and the complainants must have known that this absurdly low pricing was an error by the defendants. 33 After his first order, the second plaintiff contacted the fourth and fifth plaintiffs informing them about the laser printers. be rebutted" (per Salmon LJ in Jones v. Padavatton (1969)). 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. From time to time they communicate with each other, 4 The defendant is a company that sells information technology (IT) related products over the Internet to consumers. 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. So its going to be our reputation at stake, we thought we had a successful transaction.. David Baxter Edward Thomas and Peter Sandford Gander v BPE Solicitors (a firm) [2010] EWHC 306 (Ch) Dunlop v Higgins (1848) 1 HLC 381. They then argue that as equitable defences have not been pleaded, the court has no alternative but to allow the claim. I note that there have been powerful arguments made to the contrary. 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. In a Straits Times report dated 15January 2003 captioned $66 printer error angry customers seek lawyers help, it was reported that the second plaintiff, described as a network marketer had on 13January at about 2.00am stumbled upon a offer he could not believe $66 for a Hewlett Packard laserjet printer that normally sells for $3,854 before GST. The fact that it may have been negligent is not a relevant factor in these proceedings. As a matter of fairness, allowing amendments at a late stage should usually go hand in hand with granting leave to the other party to adduce further evidence, if necessary. 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. 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 . There cannot be any legitimate expectation of enforcement on the part of the non-mistaken party seeking to take advantage of appearances. 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, 104 The creases over the theoretical approach to adopt in determining the existence of contracts have for some time now been decisively ironed out in favour of the objective theory. 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. 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. Application of such a rule may however result in contracts being formed outside the jurisdiction if not properly drafted. Such conduct is akin to that of an unscrupulous commercial predator seeking to take advantage of an error by an unsuspecting prey by pouncing upon it before the latter has an opportunity to react or raise a shield of defence. The first plaintiff introduced him to the other plaintiffs. That is sufficient in these circumstances. This is an area that needs to be rationalised in a coherent and structured manner. 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. 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. 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, second and third plaintiffs have been friends for a long time and are bound by common business interests. He is currently self-employed and is intimately involved in the multi-level marketing sales of aromatherapy products under the Bel-Air label. The Canadian and Australian cases have moved along with the eddies of unconscionability. 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. Inflexible and mechanical rules lead to injustice. *You can also browse our support articles here >. 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. 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. 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. 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. The issue in this case was whether the pricing was a mistake and if the contract would be fulfilled. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com (2005) - Singaporean case 3d printers sold for $66 instead of $3,800. After further sms exchanges, the second plaintiff contacted the fifth plaintiff on his mobile phone, urging him to return home to access the e-mail message he had just sent. Nor could he satisfactorily explain why he initially made the Internet searches to ensure the offer was genuine. 96 In an Internet sale, a prospective purchaser is not able to view the physical stock available. It is significant that some of the plaintiffs had never made any prior Internet purchases before that eventful morning. In other words, he really wanted to ascertain the true price of the laser printer. It seems to me that he was trying to tailor his evidence to fit neatly within the legal parameters of the plaintiffs case. When giving evidence, he struck me as cautious, taking great pains to convey the impression that his numerous online enquiries that morning were routinely carried out without any real inkling that an error had occurred. Mistakes that negative consent do not inexorably result in contracts being declared void. Needless to say, this goes to the very heart of the claims sustainability. Though the actual price of the laser printer was $3,854, the defendant had on 8January 2003 mistakenly posted the price at $66.00 on its websites. The case of, The offer was wrongly expressed, and the defendants by their evidence, and by the correspondence, have satisfied me that the plaintiff, 116 The term snapping up was aptly coined by JamesLJ in, 117 It should be emphasised that this stream of authority is consistently recognised by all the major common law jurisdictions. The defendant even had its terms and conditions posted on its website. It had consciously not inserted any limits to the number of products a buyer could purchase again, quite clearly, to solicit more business. 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. (c) the need to reach commercially sensible solutions while respecting traditional principles applicable to instances of genuine error or mistake. This could account for the substantial number of Canadian cases in this area of the law. The e-mails had all the characteristics of an unequivocal acceptance. 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. In Chwee Kin Keong and ors v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, 5 VK Rajah JC, as His Honour then was, decided against the rule-based approach in Moss v Malings. In terms of chronological sequence, the initial page accessed was the shopping cart, followed by checkout-order . 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.

Can Shingles Kill A Cancer Patient, Jordantax Com Utilpay, Berkshire Eagle Obits, Articles C