chwee kin keong v digilandmall high courtconvert ethereum address to checksum
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. Reference this 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. There is no doubt that the plaintiffs acted with indecent haste in the dead of the night in placing as many orders as each of them felt their financial resources credibly permitted them to do. The first plaintiffs riposte, should such a situation come to pass, was to sue them lor. [The Myth of Mistake in the English Law of Contract (1954) 70LQR 385 at 396]. The defendants argued this pricing was a unilateral mistake and that the complainants took advantage of this. 120 The widening of jurisdiction to embrace a broad equitable jurisdiction could well encourage litigious behaviour and promote uncertainty. Singapore Court of Appeal. 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. I drew counsels attention to Halsburys Laws of Australia (Butterworths, 1992), vol6 at para 110-5550 which states: A particular class of case which illustrates unilateral mistake as to the terms intended, known to the other party, is that in which an offer which would be very advantageous to the offeree is snapped up by the offeree. 118 The Canadian courts have been the most active common law courts explicating and developing this area of the law. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. In some unusual circumstances where a unilateral mistake exists, the law can find a contract on terms intended by the mistaken party. 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. Chwee Kin Keong vs Digilandmall.com 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. The court has to be astute and adopt a pragmatic and judicious stance in resolving such issues. Having expressed my views on consideration, I should also add for good measure that, in any event, there is ample consideration. com Pte Ltd30 that was primarily about unilateral mistake. 115 There is a distinct line of cases within the narrow confines of unilateral mistake where the common law has been resolutely disinclined to enforce apparent contracts. Date of Verdicts: 12 April 2004, 13 January 2005. It deals with the process rather than the substance of how to divine the rule. He was aware that the laser printers were targeted for business use. Notwithstanding, the defendant does not take issue with this as the sixth plaintiffs orders were received and the appropriate automated responses generated. In New Zealand, the legislature enacted the Contractual Mistake Act 1977. 151 The claims by the plaintiffs are audacious, opportunistic and contrived. They were high-end commercial laser printers. The plaintiffs attempted to take advantage of the defendants mistake over the Internet. 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. 1.47K subscribers Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] Facts The defendant, Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, were an online IT company that sold related software and hardware from. The decision of V.K. 16 When the first plaintiff eventually succeeded in accessing the HP website, he immediately placed an order for 100 laser printers at about 2.05am, charging the transaction to his credit card. 58 The fifth plaintiff was first informed by the second plaintiff at about 2.30am about cheap laser printers being available for purchase. 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. Document Citado por Relacionados. They even discussed the possible scenario of the defendant not honouring the transactions. Two issues had arisen. 101 RSS Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Expand/Collapse. In addition to the law of (especially, unilateral) mistake, issues relating to the formation of a contract will be considered (including the law relating to offer and . 140 The defendant has however properly asserted that there was a unilateral mistake that vitiated all the contracts. Consideration was less than executory and non-existent. Date of Verdicts: 12 April 2004, 13 January 2005. 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. In my view this further undermines the essence of the plaintiffs case that they never contemplated that the pricing was a mistake. She opined that situations where unilateral mistake had been considered were those involving fraud or a very high degree of misconduct. Because it was simply a matter of time before the error would inevitably be noticed and the pricing inevitably corrected. 79 The second, third and fifth plaintiffs tried their best to distance themselves from the quotes attributed to them. The common law has drawn the line in Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. Needless to say, this goes to the very heart of the claims sustainability. 10 News of the rather extraordinary laser printer pricing began to spread like wildfire within the local Internet community. He is described by his counsel in submissions as a prudent and careful person. In this case, Defendant was selling IT products over internet in Singapore. In effect the Internet conveniently integrates into a single screen traditional advertising, catalogues, shop displays/windows and physical shopping. Between 3.13am and 4.00am the second plaintiff revisited the website four times placing four further orders for 20 laser printers each time. He claims visiting, 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings. 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. In such cases, where the purchaser has readily accessible means from the very same computer screen, to ascertain through a simple search whether a mistake has taken place, the onus could be upon him to exonerate himself of imputed knowledge of the mistake. 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. Rather they assist in explaining how the common law has incrementally and cautiously allowed and continues to mould exceptions to the application of the objective theory of contracts. As such, I would strongly appeal to you to reconsider your decision. The argument is that, despite appearances, there is no real correspondence of offer and acceptance and that therefore the transaction must necessarily be void. The caption in each of the e-mails Successful Purchase Confirmation from HP online says it all. Solicita tu prueba. The programme trigger on that website automatically and instantaneously initiated the insertion of similar contents onto all three websites. He is also part of the Bel-Air network. The contract stands according to the natural meaning of the words used. 44 He made his first purchase of ten laser printers at about 2.42am. 17 Having called the second and third plaintiffs at about 2.00am, the first plaintiff also sent them, via e-mail, a weblink of the relevant HP website pages. 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 what they knew, how they knew it and when they knew it. 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. By their own admission, they made Internet searches through various search engines to ascertain the profits they could make. Before dealing with the point of real substance, it is appropriate to briefly deal with two of the less meritorious contentions advanced. The phrase call to enquire, it is contended, was in effect a condition precedent. There are, however, other sound reasons to argue against such a rule in favour of the recipient rule. 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. Mutual promises, by all accounts, on the basis of existing case law, more than amply constitute consideration. 101 The applicable rules in relation to transactions over the worldwide web appear to be clearer and less controversial. Altogether he sought to purchase 760 units, the largest number of orders placed by anyone between 8 and 13January 2003. 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. 141 In so far as the sixth plaintiff is concerned, I emphasise that his knowledge and/or conduct of should be equated with that of the third plaintiff. Yong Pung HowCJ in Tribune Investment Trust Inc v Soosan Trading Co Ltd [2000] 3 SLR 405 at [40] opined: [T]he function of the court is to try as far as practical experience allows, to ensure that the reasonable expectations of honest men are not disappointed. The bites, however, may taste quite different and cause different sensations. 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. First, it is clear that the line of Australian and Canadian cases have broadened their equitable jurisdiction on the strength of dicta attributable principally to Lord Denning. COURT. In terms of chronological sequence, the initial page accessed was the shopping cart, followed by checkout-order . 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. Their reference to arbitraging was a nebulous fig leaf designed to legitimise their conduct in a cloak of legal and commercial respectability. In the final stage of the process, after the payment mode was indicated, each of the plaintiffs was notified successful transaction your order and payment transaction has been processed. The goods are not on offer but are said to be an invitation to treat. The most that the court can do in these circumstances is to refuse E [the other party, who wants the contract held void] specific performance, which lies in the discretion of the court and will probably be refused where E has been guilty of some degree of sharp practice. The issue could be critical where third party rights are in issue as in Shogun. 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. Cases of fraud and misrepresentation, and undue influence, are all catered for under other existing and uncontentious equitable rules. Be that as it may, the fifth plaintiff, soon after he received MsTohs research, shared the information with the second and third plaintiffs. The recipient rule appears to be the logical default rule. The case of Chwee Kin Keong & Ors v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 71, and the decision by VK Rajah JC, has received much public attention. To assert that as a rule, leave to amend particulars will be refused, is both illogical and incorrect. After hearing their evidence, observing them and considering the submissions made on their behalf, there was no doubt in my mind that they were fully conscious that an unfortunate and egregious mistake had indeed been made by the defendant. The modern approach in contract law requires very little to find the existence of consideration. Secondly, widening the scope of mistake, unilateral or otherwise, under the rubric of equitable mistake will, with its malleability, only encourage uncertainty and litigation. 122 For now it appears that a mistaken party can have two bites at the cherry. This is a disingenuous contention that desperately attempts to palliate their conduct in the subject transactions. Caveat emptor remains a cornerstone of the law of contract and business relationships. He also participates in multi-level marketing of Bel-Air aromatherapy products. 142 The plaintiffs were bound by personal relationships as well as past and present common commercial interests. Market orders: order to be executed immediately at the best available price. 30th Sep 2021 http://www.buy.hp.com.sg/hp/StandardProduct.cfm?prodid=HPC9960A. 47 Not content with making his own purchases, he woke up his brother and transacted 330 units on his behalf. Often the essence of good business is the use of superior knowledge. The e-mails sent at 2.34am were also captioned Go load it now! The ETA is essentially permissive. 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. 327. The law ought to take a practical approach in dealing with such cases if it appears that by exercising reasonable care the true facts ought to be known. This thread helps to rationalise the development of the common law but ought not to be viewed as supporting the existence of a general test of commercial morality tantamount to the test of unconscionability invoked by equity. To confine this exception to instances of fraud would make the concept of unilateral mistake redundant. A contract will not be concluded unless the parties are agreed as to its material terms. If the common law continues to take precedence, then an essential mistake would void a contract ab initio. 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. 155 The Internet has revolutionised commerce and radically altered the manner in which commercial interaction currently takes place. 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. He then carried out some checks on the Yahoo search engine to ascertain whether the printer model existed and whether the laser printer could be sold at more than $66. 48 The third plaintiff annexed to his affidavit the transcript of the Channel NewsAsia report where he was quoted. In evidence he explained his conduct in the following manner: I felt that I had done all that was conceivably within my means to ensure that the Price was not a mistake. All previous discussions and negotiations between the parties proceeded on the basis of the price being fixed at so much per piece. The same view is echoed in Halsburys Laws of Singapore vol7 (Butterworths Asia, 2000) at [80.164]. The quintessential approach of the law is to, 106 In the Singapore context, the first port of call when confronted with issues of contract law is inevitably Professor Andrew Phangs treatise on. 84 It is axiomatic that a court will generally be cautious if not reluctant to effect any amendments once the hearing has commenced; even more so once the evidential phase of the proceedings has been completed. 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 defendant has expressly pleaded unilateral mistake. I agree that this exception should be kept within a very narrow compass. He worked in an accounting firm, Ernst and Young, for three years. In short, where does the justice reside? 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. 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 context of its true market value the absurd price of $66 was almost the commercial equivalent of virtually giving away the laser printers. They have taken into account both the English and Australian authorities in distilling the jurisprudence in this area. Others do not. 102 Inevitably mistakes will occur in the course of electronic transmissions. 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. V K Rajah JC. 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]. With reference to the judgement, the case explores pricing mistakes by online stores. To that extent, his evidence that he subsequently dismissed the notion altogether is unacceptable. 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. 30 Tan Wei Teck is 30 years old. ! with its importance set at high. This short but highly significant e-mail reads: Subject: IMPT HP Colour LaserJet going at only $66!! 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 Gill & Duffus Landauer Ltd v London Export Corp GmbH [1982] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 627. Consideration was less than executory and non-existent. 40 When the fourth plaintiff responded to the first plaintiffs mass e-mail, he copied his response to the second plaintiff. The essence is not so much in the nature of the amendment but rather in the consequences flowing from any amendment to the pleadings. 20 Annexed to this e-mail was the first plaintiffs earlier mass e-mail. 70 The third plaintiff proceeded to place orders on behalf of the sixth plaintiff on the HP website. The fourth plaintiff duly accessed the e-mail the second plaintiff had sent him pursuant to their conversation. Landmark decision on unilateral mistake of fact in respect of the price of product listed on an online mall and the purchases made thereon . 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. 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 decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in, 25 The law of mistake was discussed in depth by McLachlinCJBC in. Borneo United Sawmills Sdn Bhd v. MUI Continental Insurance Bhd (Marine insurance - Loss of goods - Claim for loss of goods under Marine Cargo Policy) [2009] 8 CLJ 217. To my mind, the confirmation through the subsequent searches that the actual price of the laser printer was, in fact, US$2,000 would, if anything, have affirmed his belief that an error had occurred. Chwee KIN Keong AND Others v Digilandmall.COM PTE LTD [2004 ] SGHC 71 paginator.book page 594 tuesday, november 2009 7:05 am 594 singapore law reports (reissue . In this case, there was no consensus ad idem or meeting of the minds between the parties, which meant that there could be no binding contract between them. I do not know if this is an error or whether HP will honour this purchase. Web Communication: A Review Of Chwee Kin Keong And Others v. Digilandmall.com pte ltd by Rokiah Kadir [2009] 8 CLJ xxi. 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. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Any reasonable person, given the extent of the knowledge and information the plaintiffs were armed with, would have come to a similar conclusion. 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. Ltd. Yeo Tiong Min* I. 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. There is one important exception to this principle. There are persuasive arguments against extending the litmus test of unconscionability to all mistake-type situations. Administrative Law in Common Law Countries. 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. The unusual product description of 55 which the fourth plaintiff alone reluctantly acknowledged as weird and unusual would have been a red light signal that an error had occurred. In such cases, it would be unconscionable to enforce the bargain and equity will set aside the contract. This is an online dating and match-making service. The effect of Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 is not to supplement or mitigate the common law: it is to say that Bell v Lever Bros Ltd was wrongly decided. 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. Slade, in a well reasoned article written not long after Solle v Butcher was decided, asserted: In general, it is submitted that there are no cases which support the proposition that in cases of unilateral mistake, V [the enforcing party] may obtain this relief where the contract is not void at law and there has been no misrepresentation. This, by an uncanny coincidence, was the same person whom he had intended to consult in the resale of the laser printers a topic that he had discussed with the second plaintiff earlier that morning. The answer on the authorities is a mistake by one party of which the other knew or ought reasonably to have known. His credibility on the material points was dubious, at best. 109 This cautious statement by Chitty needs to be carefully reconsidered in the context of recent developments in this area of law. If the offeree knows that the offeror does not intend the terms of the offer to be those that the natural meaning of the words would suggest, he cannot, by purporting to accept the offer, bind the offeror to a contract: Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3All ER 566; Smith v Hughes (1871) LR6 QB 597. 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. Having noted all this, I am nevertheless inclined towards the views expressed in the Great Peace Shipping case for the reasons articulated by Lord PhillipsMR. He claimed that he had not asked her to do the research and that she had done it independently. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Civil Procedure Pleadings . 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. COOKE v OXLEY (1790) 3 T. R. 653. We are only concerned with the question whether relief might be given for common mistake in circumstances wider than those stipulated in Bell v Lever Bros Ltd [1932] AC 161. In the context of the present proceedings, the extra-judicial observations of Lord Steyn in Contract Law: Fulfilling the Reasonable Expectations of Honest Men (1997) 113LQR 433 at 433 are particularly apposite: A thread runs through our contract law that effect must be given to reasonable expectations of honest men. This is clearly a mistake as they could not possible be sold for an amount that in a commercial situation. This is not a case about bargain hunting which is a time honoured and perfectly legitimate pursuit. Introduction The decision of V.K. He opted to pay for all his purchases by cash on delivery.