A contract is normally concluded when an offer made by one party (the offeror) is accepted by the party to whom the offer has been made (the offeree). 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. Having ascertained the true market price, it would have appeared crystal clear, given the huge disparity in the pricing, that a manifest mistake had occurred. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version. This e-mail was sent only, 29 The first plaintiff struck me as an opportunistic entrepreneur. 106 In the Singapore context, the first port of call when confronted with issues of contract law is inevitably Professor Andrew Phangs treatise on Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmstons Law of Contract (2nd Singapore and Malaysian Ed, 1998). Mutual promises, by all accounts, on the basis of existing case law, more than amply constitute consideration. This is much closer to the truth than the picture he has tried to paint in these proceedings. Philip Fong Yeng Fatt and Doris Chia Ming Lai (Harry Elias Partnership) for defendant, Chwee Kin Keong; Tan Wei Teck; Yeow Kinn Keong Mark; Ow Eng Hwee; Tan Chun Chuen Malcolm; Yeow Kinn Oei Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! 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. 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. 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. 121 While my views here are not central to my decision, the plaintiffs have adverted to this relationship in a misguided attempt to derail the defence on an arid pleading technicality. 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. The CISG has currently been adopted by 95 Contracting States world-wide. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. Though the actual price of the laser printer was $3,854, the defendant had on 8January 2003 mistakenly posted the price at $66.00 on its websites. 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. 135 The defendant however asserts that there were no concluded contracts with any of the plaintiffs on a number of grounds. 111 In Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502 ("Chwee Kin Keong"), this court said at [101]: Under O 20 r 5(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed), the court may grant leave to amend a pleading at any stage of the proceedings. in the High Court decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd,2 from the perspective of economics. 85 Having stated the general rule, it is imperative that the rationale underlying this approach be understood. The case went before both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. 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. Her evidence was inconsequential and did not assist the plaintiffs. It deals with the process rather than the substance of how to divine the rule. This case is a paradigm example of an error on the human side. 43 After receiving a call from the first plaintiff at about 2.00am informing him that he had found an opportunity to make money as there was an arbitrage position to be achieved for some Hewlett Packard printers, the third plaintiff duly accessed his e-mail and visited the HP website. 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 unconstrained exchange that followed between the two is both revealing and compelling. 136 First, it was suggested that no contracts had been formed as all the contracts were subject to availability and that a failure to adhere to the directive call to enquire prevented the contracts from coming into existence. 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. He is currently a supervisor in the taxation department of an international accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche, specialising in corporate taxation services. 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. I was neither impressed nor convinced. This was borne out by the case of Chwee Kin Keong and Others v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 71 where an autogenerated email with "Successful Purchase Confirmation" in its subject . 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. 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.)]. Users may find that it may not be as forgiving as more traditional methods of communications. You may find the status of your order by calling us at (phone number given) Special instructions: Please call to advise delivery date and time. 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. 113 The English Court of Appeal in Commission for the New Towns v Cooper (Great Britain) Ltd [1995] Ch 259, a case of common mistake, imported the concept of Nelsonian knowledge and applied the framework of various categories of knowledge outlined by Peter GibsonJ in Baden v Societe Generale pour Favoriser le Developpement du Commerce et de lIndustrie en FranceSA [1993] 1 WLR 509. The modern approach in contract law requires very little to find the existence of consideration. 12 The plaintiffs both collectively and individually maintained adamantly that while they thought that the price of $66 appeared to be a good deal they did not think that the website prices had been mistakenly placed or inserted. The defendant was entitled to stake its entire defence on the basis of common law, though it would have been prudent ex abundanti cautela to have asserted the equitable position in the alternative. 28 In any event, the first plaintiffs commercial background and business experience alone would have amply alerted him to the likelihood of the pricing being a mistake, even without his conversation with Desmond. The following excerpts are particularly relevant: Desmond: 13/01/20 01:17 go hp online now. 14 The first, second and fourth plaintiffs became acquainted with each other when they studied at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU). 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. 101 The applicable rules in relation to transactions over the worldwide web appear to be clearer and less controversial. It was held that the contract between the parties was void. The web merchant, unless he qualifies his offer appropriately, by making it subject to the availability of stock or some other condition precedent, could be seen as making an offer to sell an infinite supply of goods. 65 He was particularly circumspect in recounting his communications with the second plaintiff. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:17 what hp online?? It appears that it wanted to leave no stone unturned and had therefore mounted a root and branch attack on the plaintiffs claims. 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. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. Case Nos: Suit 202/2003/E (for the first instance), CA/30/2004 (for the appeal) in the High Court of Singapore (at first instance), Singapore Court of Appeal. 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. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. 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. 83 The defendant maintained that there was no element of surprise and/or prejudice arising from the amendments. Gill & Duffus Landauer Ltd v London Export Corp GmbH [1982] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 627. He was also involved in initiating the Channel NewsAsia report (see [78] and [79] infra). This could account for the substantial number of Canadian cases in this area of the law. Nor could he satisfactorily explain why he initially made the Internet searches to ensure the offer was genuine. Soon after, the second, third and fifth plaintiffs took their claims to the media. The bites, however, may taste quite different and cause different sensations. Cases of fraud and misrepresentation, and undue influence, are all catered for under other existing and uncontentious equitable rules. 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. 117 It should be emphasised that this stream of authority is consistently recognised by all the major common law jurisdictions. 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. com Pte Ltd30 that was primarily about unilateral mistake. To assert that as a rule, leave to amend particulars will be refused, is both illogical and incorrect. 139 Next, the defendant contends that no consideration passed from the plaintiffs to them. 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. He too affirmed from his searches that the normal price of the laser printer was in the region of US$2,000. 44 He made his first purchase of ten laser printers at about 2.42am. But that, surely, is a question as to where the common law should draw the line; not whether, given the common law rule, it needs to be mitigated by application of some other doctrine. The law will have to organically adapt itself to respond to new challenges without compromising on certainty and fairness. Our conclusion is that it is impossible to reconcile Solle v Butcher with Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. He somewhat muddied the authority of his observations by apparently accepting in Gallie v Lee [1969] 2 Ch 17 at 33 (affirmed on appeal in Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1971] AC 1004) that in Cundy v Lindsay there was no contract at all. Before dealing with the point of real substance, it is appropriate to briefly deal with two of the less meritorious contentions advanced. 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. Keywords Contract Online Store Mistake Pricing Mistake Citation Imagine the effect of this negative publicity on your future sales! There is therefore no pre-condition in law for a mistaken party to show an absence of carelessness to avail himself of this defence; the law precludes a person from seeking to gain an advantage improperly in such circumstances. See now, also, Where common mistake is pleaded, the presence of agreement is admitted. The contract stands according to the natural meaning of the words used. No rights can pass to third parties. It will firstly discuss the fact that such a tort Our academic writing and marking services can help you! This can be supported by the decision of the High Court of Singapore in the case of Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, in which Judicial Commissioner Rajah argued that "the party who selects the means of communication should bear the consequences of any unexpected events" . 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!! A typical but not essential defining characteristic of conduct of this nature is the haste or urgency with which the non-mistaken party seeks to conclude a contract; the haste is induced by a latent anxiety that the mistaken party may learn of the error and as a result correct the error or change its mind about entering into the contract. Section11 of the ETA expressly provides that offers and acceptances may be made electronically. The plaintiffs were not being candid when they portrayed very limited exchanges between themselves, dealing allegedly with only the profits to be made and their ability to resell the laser printers. He also participates in multi-level marketing of Bel-Air aromatherapy products. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:47 u make me greedy, Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:47 ok lor if you insist . These orders were placed at a price of S$66 each, whereas the actual price was S$3,854 each. The only court judgement on the theme is Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, a judgement of the Singapore High Court. Indeed, the time may have come for the common law to shed the pretence of searching for consideration to uphold commercial contracts. 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. Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] SGCA 2 Civil Procedure - Costs - Principles - Respondent failing in every aspect of defence except on issue of unilateral mistake - Trial judge awarding full costs to respondent - Whether respondent entitled to full costs Given his professional and business background, he must have realised that the $66 price posting on the HP website was an error. In the final analysis, it would appear that the likely existence of an internal error in pricing was clearly within his contemplation. 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. As such, I would strongly appeal to you to reconsider your decision. 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. It would be illogical to have different approaches for different product sales over the Internet. 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. 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. The e-mail was given a high importance priority and captioned go load it now!!. It does not purport to regulate e-commerce but attempts to facilitate the usage of e-commerce by equating the position of electronic records with that of written records, thus elevating the status of electronic signatures to that of legal signatures. 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. The credit card payments had not been processed. The price of the laser printer, prior to 3.36pm on 8January 2003, was stipulated as $3,854 (exclusive of GST) on both the Digilandmall and HP websites (the websites), and as $3,448 on the Digiland commerce website. 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. He is also part of the Bel-Air network. He admitted in cross-examination to being the lawyer for this group of people when they had questions like these in the present proceedings. Civil Procedure Pleadings .
Save Wizard Files 2k21,
Mountain Dew Dewshine Recipe,
Articles C
