chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court

It argues that the decision is both fair and economically grounded, and proposes an alternative view to that offered by classical contract law - one that sees fairness intertwined 125 The principal source of this view has been Lord DenningMR. 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. 63 It is pertinent he too made web searches using the Google search engine. The court held that the acceptance has been completed once it is posted although here, the defendants actually did not receive the letter before they sold it to someone else. There is no larger noble principle, such as the sanctity of contracts, to be observed or protected in these proceedings. He appeared distinctly uncomfortable during several phases of his cross-examination and his answers on crucial points were evasive and often vague.. His evidence in relation to the level and nature of communications he had with the second and third plaintiffs on the morning in question lacked candour. Section13 of the ETA deems that a message by a partys automated computer system originates from the party itself. 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. 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. The most recent and authoritative pronouncement in this area (. 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. Upon accessing the Digilandmall website and confirming that the printer was offered there at $66 as well, he placed a further order for 25 laser printers through that website at about 3.29am. We are, Our conclusion is that it is impossible to reconcile, In this case we have heard full argument, which has provided what we believe has been the first opportunity in this court for a full and mature consideration of the relation between, 129 The careful analysis of case law undertaken by that court yields a cogent and forceful argument that Lord DenningMR was plainly attempting to side-step, 130 It can be persuasively argued that given (a)the historical pedigree of the cases, (b)the dictates of certainty and predictability in the business community and (c)the general acceptance of the existence of distinct common law rules, it is preferable not to conflate these concepts. There is no merit at all in this contention. The decision ofV.K. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR 502: [2005] SGCA 2 Context: This Case deals with the issue of unilateral mistake. 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 Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532 Omnium D'Enterprises v . The essence is not so much in the nature of the amendment but rather in the consequences flowing from any amendment to the pleadings. This, in a nutshell, is the issue at the heart of these proceedings. PDF Emily M. Weitzenboeck, 2012 Norwegian Research Center for - UiO The e-mail was given a high importance priority and captioned go load it now!!. Palm tree justice will only serve to inject uncertainty into the law. A court will not enforce the plaintiffs purported contracts even if they are not void. Offer and acceptances have to reach an intended recipient to be efective. 96 In an Internet sale, a prospective purchaser is not able to view the physical stock available. 2 [2004] 2 SLR 594 ("the Digilandmall case") (The decision was very recently affirmed by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] SGCA 2, albeit on somewhat different grounds and where the focus was on the law of unilateral mistake rather than formation of contract.)]. It may be impractical and unjust to demand that the mistaken party actually prove the knowledge of a substantial number of people who effect numerous purchases. 52 He then called the second plaintiff on his handphone and informed him that he intended to purchase 50 laser printers. 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. He commenced practice in 2000 and currently practices with the law firm representing the plaintiffs in this action. They then argue that as equitable defences have not been pleaded, the court has no alternative but to allow the claim. MrTan said: As long as we get out [sic] equitable compensation, we should be able to accept lesser terms, but thats just under consideration as well.. CHWEE KIN KEONG v DIGILANDMALL.COM Pte Ltd (2005) SGCA 2. The case involved the sale of printers by the defendant at a price of S$66. The appellants featured prominently because of the size of their orders. v . They are all well-educated professionals articulate, entrepreneurial and, quite bluntly, streetwise and savvy individuals. Unilateral Mistake at . From time to time they communicate with each other via the Internet and the short messaging system (sms). With reference to the judgement, the case explores pricing mistakes by online stores. 131 In a number of cases, including the present, it may not really matter which view is preferred. The defendant, on the other hand, contends that the law should not penalise a party who has unwittingly and genuinely made a unilateral mistake which was known or ought to have been known by the plaintiffs. What amounts to snapping up is a question of degree that will incorporate a spectrum of contextual factors: what is objectively and subjectively known, the magnitude of the transaction(s), the circumstances in which the orders are placed and whether any unusual factors are apparent. As with any normal contract, Internet merchants have to be cautious how they present an advertisement, since this determines whether the advertisement will be construed as an invitation to treat or a unilateral contract. The brief will discuss whether a tort of invasion of privacy should be developed by the courts. - This is also the position as regards friends: see Coward v. MIB (1963). I do not know if this is an error or whether HP will honour this purchase. 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. By their own admission, they made Internet searches through various search engines to ascertain the profits they could make. So there is a contract and therefore the defendant is liable in breach of contract. 92 The Electronics Transaction Act (Cap88, 1999Rev Ed) (ETA) places Internet contractual dealings on a firmer footing. 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. 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. 149 It is clear from the authorities reviewed that such a contract, if entered into by a party with actual or presumed knowledge of an error, is void from the outset. As part of its business, it operates a website owned by Hewlett Packard (HP) at http://www.buyhp.com.sg (the HP website) where only HP products are sold. 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. . Parties Chwee Kin Keong & Others v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. Decision date 12/04/2004. 74 Under product description on each webpage, instead of the actual description of the laser printer which in this case should have been HP9660A Color LaserJet 4600, only the numerals 55 appeared: this was the result of Samuel Teos earlier inadvertent input. This is essentially a matter of language and intention, objectively ascertained. It appears that he was also in touch with the fifth plaintiff as evidenced by an e-mail sent later that morning by the fifth plaintiff to both him and the second plaintiff containing research on what companies who had made similar Internet errors did. He is currently employed as an accountant in an accounting firm, Ernst & Young. It is not in dispute that the defendant made a genuine error. 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. 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. 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 Failure to do so could also result in calamitous repercussions. This is without basis. The CISG has currently been adopted by 95 Contracting States world-wide. It deals with the process rather than the substance of how to divine the rule. This gives their courts a broad and elastic jurisdiction to deal with commercially inappropriate behaviour. Web Communication: A Review Of Chwee Kin Keong And Others v. Digilandmall.com pte ltd by Rokiah Kadir [2009] 8 CLJ xxi. Promotions would be indicated by a P inside a yellow circle next to the product in question. Because it was simply a matter of time before the error would inevitably be noticed and the pricing inevitably corrected. 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. Despite the general views expressed in Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151CLR 422 on equitable mistake, it seems to be generally accepted in Australia as well, that this class of cases requires special mention and consideration. 138 Effectively, the defendant was attempting in this contention to assert that it could have its cake and eat it as well. He conducted the searches to ascertain what the laser printers true price was. There cannot be any legitimate expectation of enforcement on the part of the non-mistaken party seeking to take advantage of appearances. LOW, Kelvin Fatt Kin. As such, I would strongly appeal to you to reconsider your decision. [emphasis added]. 133 It is however clear that the law should not take cognisance of bad bargains and misapprehension that do not affect a fundamental or essential aspect of a contractual relationship. The answer on the authorities is a mistake by one party of which the other knew or ought reasonably to have known. This assertion is patently untrue. 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. They contended that the entire ICQ conversation, infused with such a jocular tone, should be disregarded. If he was prepared to commit this view in writing to a larger circle of 54 friends and business associates after his communication with the second and third plaintiffs, he would certainly have shared this view with his close friends with even greater candour and detail. 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. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:33 as many as I can! While I agree with what Madam Justice Mclachlin said so far as it goes, I do not believe she intended to imply that there must be a conscious taking advantage by one party of the other in all cases. His Internet research alone would have confirmed that. 61 The fifth plaintiff placed an order for 100 laser printers at about 3.51am. 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. In submissions, his counsel attempted to play down the significance of both this conversation as well as the mass e-mail. 83 The defendant maintained that there was no element of surprise and/or prejudice arising from the amendments. The payment mode opted for was cash on delivery. When pressed why he asked MsToh to do this research, the fifth plaintiffs response was unsatisfactory. In the eyes of Singapore law, purported contracts entered into in similar circumstances are void ab initio. The non-mistaken partys appreciation that there is no real offer on the contracts literal terms undermines the basis of the objective theory and necessarily imports the lack of subjective intention on the part of the mistaken party. Mistakes that negative consent do not inexorably result in contracts being declared void. Counsel however contends that even if this e-mail were to be read literally, this should not affect the first plaintiffs own purchase that had taken place an hour earlier. 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. 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. The plaintiffs orders were processed by the defendants automated system and confirmation notes were automatically despatched to the plaintiffs within a few minutes. Case Summary 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. ! with its importance set at high. In the absence of proper and full arguments on the issue of which rule is to be preferred, I do not think it is appropriate for me to give any definitive views in these proceedings on this very important issue. Part of the training module included hands-on training with a new template for a Price Mass Upload function. 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. This new template was designed to facilitate instantaneous price changes allowing them to be simultaneously reflected in the relevant Internet web pages. 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. 155 The Internet has revolutionised commerce and radically altered the manner in which commercial interaction currently takes place. 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. Thus, while the idea of snapping up may well apply in cases one side is aware of the other sides error, I do not think it can be applied literally in the constructive knowledge cases. Case Note: Singapore - CORE 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. 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. 15 Early on the morning of 13January 2003 at about 1.17am, the first plaintiff received a message from a friend, Desmond Tan (Desmond), through an Internet chatlink. 151 The claims by the plaintiffs are audacious, opportunistic and contrived. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:41 u want it for profit or personal use? In addition, each of the confirmatory e-mail responses states at the outset: [W]e will be calling you in the near future to deliver the products to the address shown below. 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. The Question about Validity of Postal Rule - lawteacher.net Web merchants ought to ensure that they either contract out of the receipt rule or expressly insert salient terms within the contract to deal with issues such as a choice of law, jurisdiction and other essential terms relating to the passing of risk and payment. The contract stands according to the natural meaning of the words used. Certainty in commercial transactions should not be trifled with, as this will inevitably affect how commercial and business exchanges are respected and effected. 129 The careful analysis of case law undertaken by that court yields a cogent and forceful argument that Lord DenningMR was plainly attempting to side-step Bell v Lever in a naked attempt to achieve equitable justice in the face of the poverty of the common law. by the earlier decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502, where the Court of Appeal recognised the doctrine of unilateral mistake in equity, departing from the English position in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2003] QB 679; [2002] 3 WLR 1617; [2002] 4 All ER 689. The first and fifth plaintiffs ordered exactly a hundred laser printers each. These statements are not to be interpreted as a clarion call to rewrite commercial agreements because of a partys unreasonable or ignoble behaviour. The quintessential approach of the law is to preserve rather than to undermine contracts. Rather, in my opinion, constructive knowledge alone will suffice to invoke equitys conscience. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:33 how many u intend to get? 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. Once again, however, this does not deprive E of his legal remedies; nor does it avail V if he wishes to recover property which he may have transferred under the contract. In Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Credit du NordSA [1989] 1 WLR 255 at 266, Lord DenningMRs views were doubted and described as reflecting an individual opinion by SteynJ (as he then was).

Leeds United Hooligans, Which Chef Has Died Recently, Lake Conway Alligator, Articles C