After placing his second order, he admitted making further searches on the Internet to fortify my view that the price of the $66 per printer was not a mistake He was also the only plaintiff who placed an order on 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 . This is a case about predatory pack hunting. 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 Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, 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. 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 following excerpt is particularly significant and compelling: 23 The subsequent exchange further clarifies that the first plaintiff was fully conscious of the potential profit element arising from the purchase of a substantial number of the laser printers. After establishing from the web pages that the price quoted for the laser printer was indeed $66, he proceeded to make searches through search engines like Yahoo and visited the website of Hardware.com. 64 The fifth plaintiff was vague and tentative in many crucial aspects of his evidence. , In unilateral mistake, only one of the parties is mistaken. 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. The defendant also sells HP products on its own website at http://www.digiland.com (the Digilandmall website). The reach of and potential response(s) to such an advertisement are however radically different. Though both of them admit to having had discussions about the website terms and conditions governing the purchases, they deny that there was any discussion between them on even the possibility of an error having taken place. 39 The sequence of orders placed by the second plaintiff in the short space of an hour and a half deserves some mention. He held that the Written Offer was accepted by the . case concerning the purchase of laser printers from an online retailer, Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall 76 : To effect the purchase transactions on the respective websites, the plaintiffs had to navigate through several web pages. Where common mistake is pleaded, the presence of agreement is admitted. He is also part of the Bel-Air network. 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. This is to be contrasted with: Hare, Inequitable Mistake (2003) 62CLJ 29, Chandler et al, Common Mistake: Theoretical Justification and Remedial Inflexibility [2004] JBL 34. 327. A prospective purchaser is entitled to rely on the terms of the web advertisement. CHWEE KIN KEONG v DIGILANDMALL.COM Pte Ltd (2005) SGCA 2. At 4.16am he placed another order for one laser printer, by credit card, on the HP website. - Rebutting presumption: "The question [whether or not there is a binding contract] must depend on the Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. The decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in 25659 BC Ltd v 456795 BC Ltd (1999) 171DLR(4th) 470 at [25] to [26], is instructive: 25 The law of mistake was discussed in depth by McLachlinCJBC in First City Capital Ltd v BC Building Corp (1989), 43BLR 29 (SC). Unlike instances of fraud, where it is said fraud unravels the existing contract, in instances of unilateral mistake, the very existence of the contract is negatived there is no consensus. 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 He has common business interests with the first, third and fourth plaintiffs. However, not all principles will or can apply in the same manner that they apply to traditional paper-based and oral contracts. Certainty in commercial transactions should not be trifled with, as this will inevitably affect how commercial and business exchanges are respected and effected. In addition, he despatched e-mails to the fourth and fifth plaintiffs attaching a hyperlink to the HP website. The Question about Validity of Postal Rule - lawteacher.net 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?? Certain Internet service providers provide the technology to inform a sender that a message has not been properly routed. The complainants argued that they were not aware that this price was a mistake and wanted the binding contract to be fulfilled. Section13 of the ETA deems that a message by a partys automated computer system originates from the party itself. The second issue was raised by me and touched upon contentions made by both parties in their written submissions. This is clearly a mistake as they could not possible be sold for an amount that in a commercial situation. They stoutly assert that they were too preoccupied with the realisation of potential profits through a so-called arbitrage position between different markets to contemplate that an error had been made. They then argue that as equitable defences have not been pleaded, the court has no alternative but to allow the claim. 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. Yet in other aspects, he could recollect, with crystal clear precision and clarity, details of what had transpired. 80 Upon the conclusion of submissions, I directed counsel to appear before me. 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings. Mutual promises, by all accounts, on the basis of existing case law, more than amply constitute consideration. 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]. He holds an accounting degree from NTU. Palm tree justice will only serve to inject uncertainty into the law. 95 The known availability of stock could be an important distinguishing factor between a physical sale and an Internet transaction. 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). His communications with the fifth plaintiff, a lawyer, on the efficacy of the terms and conditions also lead to the ineluctable conclusion that he harboured anxieties whether this astoundingly good deal would be honoured when the error was discovered. 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 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. When pressed as to whether he visited other websites, he said he could not confirm that one way or the other. 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. (2d) Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall [2004 ] SGHC 71 Digilandmall - 502 SINGAPORE LAW REPORTS (REISSUE) [2005] 1 SLR(R 10 News of the rather extraordinary laser printer pricing began to spread like wildfire within the local Internet community. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:43 yeah man whats the original price? Why? The issue could be critical where third party rights are in issue as in Shogun. 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. 42 Mark Yeow Kinn Keong has a Bachelor of Science (Economics) degree from the University of London. After the defendant intimated that it would not be delivering the laser printer, he sent an e-mail excoriating it, asserting, inter alia: Myself, and other people who have been disappointed by you decision, will definitely spread word of the companys lack of honour and integrity to everyone we know and all over the internet! They proceeded to file their amendments to the statement of claim as if leave had already been given. 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. How do I Locate Case Law?: Case Names & Citations 31 He admitted receiving a call from the first plaintiff at about 2.00am but claimed the first plaintiff merely apprised him of a good deal. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:46 hahahaha yeah lor .. aiyah why u only buy 3????? 2 Who is correct? The rules of offer and acceptance are satisfied and the parties are of one mind. (c) the need to reach commercially sensible solutions while respecting traditional principles applicable to instances of genuine error or mistake. COURT. 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. 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. If the common law continues to take precedence, then an essential mistake would void a contract ab initio. 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, 52 He then called the second plaintiff on his handphone and informed him that he intended to purchase 50 laser printers. The E-Mail Acceptance Rule. The elements of an offer and acceptance are ex facie satisfied in every transaction asserted in the plaintiffs claims. A prospective purchaser is entitled to rely on the terms of the web advertisement. Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp. [1955] 2 Q.B. 4 The defendant is a company that sells information technology (IT) related products over the Internet to consumers. Arrival can also be immaterial unless a recipient accesses the e-mail, but in this respect e-mail does not really differ from mail that has to be opened. This could account for the substantial number of Canadian cases in this area of the law. In addition, Tan Cheng Peng, the girlfriend and business associate of the third plaintiff, filed an affidavit detailing her communications with him. This has clearly caused much confusion in the common law jurisdictions. 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. It deals with the process rather than the substance of how to divine the rule. Normally the contract is only concluded when the acceptance is communicated by the offeree to the offeror. Chwee KIN Keong AND Others v Digilandmall.COM PTE LTD [2004 ] SGHC 71 Websites often provide a service where online purchases may be made. June Proctor, 1997, p. 13. 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. Case Update: B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd [2019] SGHC(I) 3; Quoine v B2C2 I must add that I did not really think this was necessary and subsequent events confirmed my perception. 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. It has been a fertile source of academic debate, but in practice it has given rise to a handful of cases that have merely emphasised the confusion of this area of our jurisprudence. 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. The case went before both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. An FAQ guide to electronic contracts in Singapore - Lexology 73 The sixth plaintiffs orders did not receive matching confirmations from the defendant as his e-mail box was full. 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!! ! with its importance set at high. Their conduct in pursuing their claims cannot by any stretch of the imagination be characterised as having the slightest colour of being legitimate regardless of whether the subjective or objective theories are applied and whether common law or equity is applied in adjudicating this matter. Civil Procedure Pleadings . As part of its business, it operates a website owned by Hewlett Packard (HP) at, 16 When the first plaintiff eventually succeeded in accessing the HP website, he immediately placed an order for 100 laser printers at about, 17 Having called the second and third plaintiffs at about. 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. 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. 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. Cases of fraud and misrepresentation, and undue influence, are all catered for under other existing and uncontentious equitable rules. Who bears the risk of such mistakes? The plaintiffs attempted to take advantage of the defendants mistake over the Internet. As a lawyer, he appears to have been indispensable in the plaintiffs attempts to hold the defendant to the bargain. 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. 144 I find, in the alternative, that the plaintiffs, given each of their backgrounds, would in any event, each have separately realised and appreciated, before placing their purchase orders, that a manifest mistake had occurred even if no communications on the error had taken place between them. 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. In turn, the ICQ chat session involving the first plaintiff and the respective plaintiffs exchange of e-mails played a significant role in undermining their credibility and claims. This can result from human interphasing, machine error or a combination of such factors. [emphasis added]. 135 The defendant however asserts that there were no concluded contracts with any of the plaintiffs on a number of grounds. They were clearly anxious to place their orders before the defendant took steps to correct the error. 681) when the court had to decide the moment of contr act formation by post. Singapore Court of Appeal. He seemed to suggest that in a number of cases going as far back as, He somewhat muddied the authority of his observations by apparently accepting in, 126 The Australian courts appear to have relied on the views of Lord DenningMR in, 127 The attempt to conflate the concept of common law mistake and the equitable jurisdiction over mistake is understandable but highly controversial. This final mass e-mail only reinforces my view that the first plaintiff consistently and continuously entertained the view that the price posting on the HP website was a mistake. 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. 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. June 16, 2022; Posted by why do chavs wear tracksuits; 16 . 101 The applicable rules in relation to transactions over the worldwide web appear to be clearer and less controversial. 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 now, also, 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. In support of the latter it might be argued that unlike a posting, e-mail communication takes place in a relatively short time frame. Defence counsel indicated that he wanted to regularise the position on the agency relationship between third and sixth plaintiffs which had been thrashed out during cross-examination; he also wished to plead additional particulars of the respective plaintiffs actual knowledge of or belief in a mistake having occurred, which had emerged both before and during the hearing. 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. The defendant programmed the software. Errors may incur wholly unexpected, and sometimes untoward, consequences as these proceedings so amply demonstrate. Alternatively, knowledge may be readily inferred from what would be regarded as commonly known or notorious facts in the context of the transaction. 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 While the first plaintiff was the source of the information concerning the price posting, the second plaintiff actively communicated with all of the plaintiffs (save the sixth plaintiff), throughout the material period. Failure to do so could also result in calamitous repercussions. This may be too high a price to pay in this area of the law. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd,( [2005]SGCA 2 ) . Chwee Kin Keong and others v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. [2004] SGHC 71. 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. Interestingly, Desmond also remarked to the first plaintiff that he wasnt greedy before I tok to u. To that extent, his evidence that he subsequently dismissed the notion altogether is unacceptable. 20 Annexed to this e-mail was the first plaintiffs earlier mass e-mail. 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. His Internet research alone would have confirmed that. 67 MsToh subsequently did some research on how companies which had committed similar mistakes over the Internet handled the aftermath. In its pleaded case, the defendant asserts that the automated e-mail responses it sent out in the early hours of 13January 2003 did not confirm that stock of the laser printers were available and would be delivered. He graduated with an accounting degree from NTU. 13 The first plaintiff, Chwee Kin Keong, is 29 years old. Desmond intimated that the defendant would give vouchers or special deals as a matter of equitable compensation should it not honour the purchase orders. 156 The plaintiffs claims are dismissed. CISG-online is a research platform dedicated to the law and practice of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods adopted in Vienna on 11 April 1980 (CISG), as well as related areas of international commercial law. 68 Yeow Kinn Oei is 29 years old and the brother of the third plaintiff. 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. Ltd.1 has the makings of a student's classic for several rea- The phrase call to enquire, it is contended, was in effect a condition precedent. Mistakes that negative consent do not inexorably result in contracts being declared void. The Canadian and Australian cases have moved along with the eddies of unconscionability. There are, however, other sound reasons to argue against such a rule in favour of the recipient rule. Prior to this he was an associate in the Intellectual Property and Technology Department of Allen & Gledhill. 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. Yong Pung HowCJ in, [T]he function of the court is to try as far as practical experience allows, to ensure that the, Tan Sok Ling, Malcolm Tan and Mohan Das Vijayaratnam (Tan S L and Partners) for plaintiffs; The relevant text reads: WHILE surfing the Net at about 2am on Monday, MrTan Wei Teck stumbled upon an offer he could not believe $66 for a Hewlett Packard laserjet printer that normally sells for $3,854 before GST. Indeed he had conduct of significant phases of these proceedings on behalf of the plaintiffs. 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. The rigour in limiting this scope is also critical to protect innocent third party rights that may have been acquired directly or indirectly. On the issue of his actual knowledge and communications with the other plaintiffs at the material time, I found his evidence unsatisfactory. 7191 RSS High Court Expand/Collapse. Mistakes are usually synonymous with the existence of carelessness on the part of the mistaken party. Counsels approach is flawed. In common mistake, both parties make the same mistake. This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. Despite their familial relationship, the legal relationship between the two of them was that of agent and principal. Indeed, in difficult cases, the courts in several common law jurisdictions have gone to extraordinary lengths to conjure up consideration. In some unusual circumstances where a unilateral mistake exists, the law can find a contract on terms intended by the mistaken party. Date of Verdicts: 12 April 2004, 13 January 2005. 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. 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. Rather, in my opinion, constructive knowledge alone will suffice to invoke equitys conscience. 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. This rationalised the law and gives the court a broad discretion to fashion the applicable relief. 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. 87 It appeared to me that the extract from Singapore Civil Procedure 2003 relied on by the plaintiffs was blindly lifted from earlier editions of the English White Book without any consideration as to how it dovetails with the present procedural climate. 131 In a number of cases, including the present, it may not really matter which view is preferred. He graduated from NTU as a bachelor of business studies, specialising in financial analysis. Forming an Agreement, Offer and Acceptance Flashcards | Quizlet After receiving the e-mail from the first plaintiff, he visited the relevant HP website pages. 96 In an Internet sale, a prospective purchaser is not able to view the physical stock available. 103 The amalgam of factors a court will have to consider in risk allocation ought to include: (a) the need to observe the principle of upholding rather than destroying contracts, (b) the need to facilitate the transacting of electronic commerce, and.