Promotions would be indicated by a P inside a yellow circle next to the product in question. Counsels approach is flawed. The answer on the authorities is a mistake by one party of which the other knew or ought reasonably to have known. A steady stream of decisions from common law courts indicate a measured but nevertheless distinctly incremental willingness to extend the scope of the exception to not just actual knowledge, but deemed or constructive knowledge as well. What is urged is that, owing to a common error as to some fundamental fact, the agreement is robbed of all efficacy. He claims he then accessed the US HP website either through a Google web search engine or by abbreviating the url of the HP website. 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. Merchants may find their contracts formed in foreign jurisdictions and therefore subject to foreign laws. He said that he wanted to be sure that the offer on the HP website was genuine. 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. 83 The defendant maintained that there was no element of surprise and/or prejudice arising from the amendments. In addition, he despatched e-mails to the fourth and fifth plaintiffs attaching a hyperlink to the HP website. 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. 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. 66 The fifth plaintiff also gave evidence that the next morning, when he logged on his computer, he noted that a Hong Kong lawyer friend, Coral Toh, was also logged onto her computer. No modern authority was cited to me suggesting an intended commercial transaction of this nature could ever fail for want of consideration. 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. After the defendant intimated that it would not be delivering the laser printer, he sent an e-mail excoriating it, asserting, I felt that I had done all that was conceivably within my means to ensure that the Price was. It was found that the plaintiffs must have known or realised that the offer did not express the true intention of the defendants. Consideration was less than executory and non-existent. The later the amendment, the greater the adverse consequences. 18 He said he later conducted some searches using the Google search engine and ascertained that the laser printer could be sold at about US$1,300 in certain markets. He subsequently sent the web link to the Epinions website to the first and second plaintiffs. 79 The second, third and fifth plaintiffs tried their best to distance themselves from the quotes attributed to them. Ltd.1 has the makings of a student's classic for several reasons: it presents a textbook . Date of Verdicts: 12 April 2004, 13 January 2005. He graduated from NTU as a bachelor of business studies, specialising in financial analysis. 96 In an Internet sale, a prospective purchaser is not able to view the physical stock available. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? 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. 100 There is however another statute that ought to be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate default rule in e-commerce transactions. This is in contrast to the English position where after several decades Hartog v Colin & Shields still remains the locus classicus. Be that as it may, the fifth plaintiff, soon after he received MsTohs research, shared the information with the second and third plaintiffs. He placed another order for a further 150 printers at 3.14am, followed by two further orders for 300 printers each at about 3.56am and 3.59am. I must add that I did not really think this was necessary and subsequent events confirmed my perception. In the eyes of Singapore law, purported contracts entered into in similar circumstances are void ab initio. 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. 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. Plaintiffs counsel indicated that they wanted to further particularise the sixth plaintiffs purchase orders. 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. The present article analyses the many important issues that are raised by what is probably the first case on Internet mistake - the Singapore High Court decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594. COURT. 54 The fourth plaintiff admits that he had entertained the idea at the material time that the price posting could have been an error. 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. 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. He is 32 years old and conducts his own network marketing business. Hence the first plaintiffs cryptically worded but highly significant mass e-mail where he adverted to the fact that he did not know if the defendant would honour the contracts but in any event wished all the recipients good luck. 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. 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. The Canadian and Australian cases have moved along with the eddies of unconscionability. be rebutted" (per Salmon LJ in Jones v. Padavatton (1969)). 118 The Canadian courts have been the most active common law courts explicating and developing this area of the law. The caption in each of the e-mails Successful Purchase Confirmation from HP online says it all. 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 holds an accounting degree from NTU. A contract will not be concluded unless the parties are agreed as to its material terms. 327. Theoretically the supply of information is limitless. Normally the contract is only concluded when the acceptance is communicated by the offeree to the offeror. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:40 if any friend got extra printer u want? 138 Effectively, the defendant was attempting in this contention to assert that it could have its cake and eat it as well. There must be consensus ad idem. 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. The issue in this case was whether the pricing was a mistake and if the contract would be fulfilled. 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 fact that it may have been negligent is not a relevant factor in these proceedings. This was not noticed by the company until over 4,000 printers were ordered. 41 The second plaintiff seems to have redefined the facts to achieve his objective in these proceedings. Unfortunately, they mistakenly offered the price at so much per pound in place of so much per piece. 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 object of the exercise is to determine what each party intended, or must be deemed to have intended. The decision of V.K. 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 argument is that, despite appearances, there is no real correspondence of offer and acceptance and that therefore the transaction must necessarily be void. Web Communication: A Review Of Chwee Kin Keong And Others v. Digilandmall.com pte ltd by Rokiah Kadir [2009] 8 CLJ xxi. By their own admission, they made Internet searches through various search engines to ascertain the profits they could make. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. In submissions, his counsel attempted to play down the significance of both this conversation as well as the mass e-mail. 24 While the first plaintiff conceded that he had communicated to the second and third plaintiffs the existence of a good deal, he maintained he did not discuss the possibility of the pricing being a mistake. Ltd. Yeo Tiong Min* I. 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. See now, also, 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. 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. (See for example the approach in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1990] 1AllER 512.) In the recent case of Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd (2005), the Singapore Courts were provided with an opportunity to revisit the law concerning mistakes made in the formation of a contract, in particular, in the context of online contracts. 5 A related website for corporate clients and re-sellers (the Digiland commerce website) is owned and operated by a related entity, Digiland International Limited (DIL). 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. No rights can pass to third parties. . 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. Interestingly, Desmond also remarked to the first plaintiff that he wasnt greedy before I tok to u. Date of Verdicts: 12 April 2004, 13 January 2005. 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. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:47 wasnt greedy before I tok to u. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:47 yeah.. S$1 mio then no need to work liao?? 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. 53 He claimed that seeing the same price on the Digilandmall website confirmed his view that there had been no mistake. The defendant has expressly pleaded unilateral mistake. The brief will discuss whether a tort of invasion of privacy should be developed by the courts. The essence is not so much in the nature of the amendment but rather in the consequences flowing from any amendment to the pleadings. They want Digiland to honour the deal or at least to compensate them. 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. http://www.buy.hp.com.sg/hp/StandardProduct.cfm?prodid=HPC9960A. He is also described as the sole proprietor and manager of two other businesses that provide business support and consultancy. If an offeree understands an offer in accordance with its natural meaning and accepts it, the offeror cannot be heard to say that he intended the words of his offer to have a different meaning. I categorically reject their evidence in so far as it attempts to hermetically compartmentalise their knowledge and discussions. If there appears to be no reasonable explanation for an absurd price discrepancy, it is axiomatic that any hasty conduct, such as the plaintiffs, in snapping up products, should be punctiliously scrutinised and dissected. [emphasis added]. 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. The complainants had ordered over 100 printers each at this price. 156 The plaintiffs claims are dismissed. The plaintiffs attempted to take advantage of the defendants mistake over the Internet. This gives their courts a broad and elastic jurisdiction to deal with commercially inappropriate behaviour. On the issue of his actual knowledge and communications with the other plaintiffs at the material time, I found his evidence unsatisfactory. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:24 huh?? 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. 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. The question is what is capable of displacing that apparent agreement. I found his entire evidence relating to his communication with the first and other plaintiffs unsatisfactory and in many aspects incredulous. In the fifth plaintiffs affidavit evidence, he asserted emphatically and unequivocally that at no point did I ever think that the price of the printers were a mistake. 142 The plaintiffs were bound by personal relationships as well as past and present common commercial interests. June 16, 2022; Posted by why do chavs wear tracksuits; 16 . A contract will not be concluded unless the parties are agreed as to its material terms. The current general approach is correctly stated in Professor Jeffrey Pinslers Singapore Court Practice 2003 (LexisNexis, 2003) at para20/5/7: An amendment may be allowed even after both parties have made their closing submissions. He had left everything to his brother. Indeed, the time may have come for the common law to shed the pretence of searching for consideration to uphold commercial contracts. The preface I do not know in no way detracts from this; the e-mail being addressed to a large group of 54 persons, the first plaintiff would simply not have wanted to commit himself by saying I know. 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. 95 The known availability of stock could be an important distinguishing factor between a physical sale and an Internet transaction. Having noted all this, I am nevertheless inclined towards the views expressed in the, 131 In a number of cases, including the present, it may not really matter which view is preferred. The case went before both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. He worked for a short period in the IT Project Development department of the Standard Chartered Bank, where he became acquainted with the first plaintiff. chwee kin keong and others digilandmall.com pte ltd sghc 71 case number suit decision date 12 april 2004 high court coram rajah jc counsel name(s) tan sok ling Skip to document Ask an Expert Sign inRegister Sign inRegister Home Ask an ExpertNew My Library Discovery Institutions Republic Polytechnic London School of Business and Finance The sixth plaintiff is precluded from asserting his ignorance. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. The recipient rule is therefore more convenient and relevant in the context of both instantaneous or near instantaneous communications. He graduated with an accounting degree from NTU. In-house law team, Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502, Contract unilateral mistake Internet Contract Consensus ad Idem Meeting of the Minds Acceptance Offer Void Error. Reference this No cash had been collected. Again he attempted to minimise the impact of these observations by saying his subsequent searches erased all such doubts. Chwee Kin Keong and others v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. [2004] SGHC 71. 94 Historically, the common law has recognised an anomaly in the contractual features pertaining to a display of goods for sale. 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. 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. A prospective purchaser is entitled to rely on the terms of the web advertisement. To that extent, his evidence that he subsequently dismissed the notion altogether is unacceptable. [emphasis added]. 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. 120 The widening of jurisdiction to embrace a broad equitable jurisdiction could well encourage litigious behaviour and promote uncertainty. When the defendants discovered this mistake on their website, they sent an email to the complainants to say they would not be fulfilling this order. 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. There was no element of surprise or prejudice to the plaintiffs as the points raised had already been developed by the defendant and addressed by the plaintiffs. 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.
Jennifer Marsico Lapham, Facts About John Murphy Sock, Articles C