chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court
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. After referring to a series of leading cases, including the often quoted decision of ThomsonJ in McMaster University v Wilchar Construction Ltd (1971), 22DLR(3d) 9 (Ont HCJ), Chief Justice McLachlin said at p37: One circumstance falling clearly within the equitable jurisdiction of the Court to relieve against mistake is that where one party, knowing of the others mistake as to the terms of an offer, remains silent and concludes a contract on the mistaken terms: Solle, supra; Belle River Community Arena v WJC Kaufman Co (1978), 20OR(2d) 447, 4 BLR 231, 87DLR(3d) 761 (CA). 148 The circumstances under which the orders were placed and the quantities sought to be purchased wholly undermine counsels variegated contentions that the plaintiffs lacked knowledge of or belief in the existence of a mistake. Mistakes are usually synonymous with the existence of carelessness on the part of the mistaken party. The complainants argued that they were not aware that this price was a mistake and wanted the binding contract to be fulfilled. 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. Leave was also given to the plaintiffs to adduce further evidence, if they so desired. Because it was simply a matter of time before the error would inevitably be noticed and the pricing inevitably corrected. 26 It is clear from the priority status accorded to the e-mail that the first plaintiff was sharing his knowledge of a good deal. In that sense, it is akin to ordinary posting. 142 The plaintiffs were bound by personal relationships as well as past and present common commercial interests. The plaintiffs and the defendant later reached an agreement to dispense with any further oral evidence, save for that of Tan Cheng Peng. The goods are not on offer but are said to be an invitation to treat. 153 These statements of jurisprudence are of cardinal importance in understanding and fashioning the law of contract. "Unilateral Mistake at Common Law and in Equity" by Kelvin Fatt Kin LOW Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532 Omnium D'Enterprises v . VKR a j a hJ C. 27-30 January; 2-6, 9 February; 13 March; 12 April 2004. 73 The sixth plaintiffs orders did not receive matching confirmations from the defendant as his e-mail box was full. I even went to both the HP Web-Site as well as the DigilandMall Web-site to see if the prices were the same. To that extent, his evidence that he subsequently dismissed the notion altogether is unacceptable. 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. 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 . In the eyes of Singapore law, purported contracts entered into in similar circumstances are void ab initio. The defendants wanted to sell some hare skins to the plaintiffs. 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. 48 The third plaintiff annexed to his affidavit the transcript of the Channel NewsAsia report where he was quoted. The case went before both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. 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. In Chwee Kin Keong v . Case Summary June 16, 2022; Posted by why do chavs wear tracksuits; 16 . There is no merit at all in this contention. Where either mutual or unilateral mistake is pleaded, the very existence of agreement is denied. Pages 74 Ratings 100% (5) 5 out of 5 people found this document helpful; He confirmed through these searches that the usual price of the laser printers was in the region of US$2,000. Article24 of the Convention states: For the purposes of this Part of the Convention, an offer, declaration of acceptance or any other indication of intention reaches the addressee when it is made orally to him or delivered by any other means to him personally, to his place of business or mailing address or, if he does not have a place of business or mailing address, to his habitual residence. 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. Having said that, this exception must always be prudently invoked and judiciously applied; the exiguous scope of this exception is necessary to give the commercial community confidence that commercial transactions will almost invariably be honoured when all the objective contractual indicia are satisfied. 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. Who bears the risk of such mistakes? 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. Parties Chwee Kin Keong & Others v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. Decision date 12/04/2004. I note that there have been powerful arguments made to the contrary. This is a matter perhaps best left to law reform rather than to incremental judge-made law which may sow the seeds of confusion and harvest the returns of uncertainty. 101 RSS Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Expand/Collapse. It appears that it wanted to leave no stone unturned and had therefore mounted a root and branch attack on the plaintiffs claims. The first plaintiff introduced him to the other plaintiffs. 132 It can be seen from this brief excursus into the law of mistake that this is an abstruse area. [2004 ] SGHC 71 - Court Judgement - Chwee Kin Keong and Others v hahaha means S$132, Desmond 13/01/20 01:43 even $500 is a steal. The essence is not so much in the nature of the amendment but rather in the consequences flowing from any amendment to the pleadings. 92 The Electronics Transaction Act (Cap88, 1999Rev Ed) (ETA) places Internet contractual dealings on a firmer footing. Samuel Teo had used all these notional numerals on the training template. He subsequently sent the web link to the Epinions website to the first and second plaintiffs. This provision acknowledges that the essential framework of an electronic contract needs to be considered in the usual manner; in other words, principles of contract formation, consideration, terms and conditions, choice of law and jurisdictional issues need to be examined. Contract doctrine is substantially predicated upon achieving an ethical equilibrium between the individualistic ethic and community ethic in order to protect reasonable or legitimate expectations. 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. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. Indeed this appears to be the underlying rationale for the unique legal characteristics attributed to an invitation to treat; see Grainger & Son v Gough [1896] AC 325 at 333334, Esso Petroleum Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1976] 1All ER 117 at 126. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd | India Contract Law 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. It had consciously not inserted any limits to the number of products a buyer could purchase again, quite clearly, to solicit more business. The defendant is therefore entitled to recover in full its taxed costs from the plaintiffs. The essence of snapping up lies in taking advantage of a known or perceived error in circumstances which ineluctably suggest knowledge of the error. The decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in, 25 The law of mistake was discussed in depth by McLachlinCJBC in. The other school of thought views the approach outlined earlier with considerable scepticism. He is also part of the Bel-Air network. While this case needs to be treated with some caution, as it appears to integrate concepts of law and equity, I respectfully agree with the approach in so far as it deals with deemed knowledge. 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. http://www.epinions.com/HP_Color_LaserJet_4600_Series_Printer_Printers. Cory had chosen this mode of communication; therefore he Websites often provide a service where online purchases may be made. 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. He claimed that he had not asked her to do the research and that she had done it independently. The second issue was raised by me and touched upon contentions made by both parties in their written submissions. As the Channel NewsAsia report so succinctly summarised they saw a great opportunity and grabbed it. 126 The Australian courts appear to have relied on the views of Lord DenningMR in Solle v Butcher to establish a wholly different doctrinal approach to mistake and have purportedly applied a fused concept of law and equity to the law on mistake. 3 All six plaintiffs are graduates, conversant with the usage of the Internet and its practices and endowed with more than an adequate understanding of business and commercial practices. 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. This is one of the first prominent case that deals with the issue of web based contract. He offered to buy a laser printer from Desmond at double the price, that is $132. in the High Court decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd,2 from the perspective of economics. The product descriptions in all the other pages of the respective websites, at the material time, carried a full detailed description of all advertised products. 90 After leave was granted to amend the defence, each of the plaintiffs filed a further short affidavit refuting knowledge of the mistake relating to pricing. The Canadian and Australian cases have moved along with the eddies of unconscionability. The complainants had ordered over 100 printers each at this price. It has been pointed out that the pedigree of these decisions is dubious, to say the least (see [128] and [129] infra). 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. Her evidence was inconsequential and did not assist the plaintiffs. Pginas: 93: High Court - Suit n 202 of 2003. This is approved in a Singaporean case, Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd . It deals with the process rather than the substance of how to divine the rule. The reach of and potential response(s) to such an advertisement are however radically different. 51 The fourth plaintiff received a phone call from the second plaintiff at about 2.00am, informing him that there was money to be made through the purchase of laser printers. The other school of thought views the approach outlined earlier with considerable scepticism. 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. On the issue of his actual knowledge and communications with the other plaintiffs at the material time, I found his evidence unsatisfactory. 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 chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court Transactions over websites are almost invariably instantaneous and/or interactive. 6 On Wednesday, 8January 2003 between 3.00pm and 4.00pm, DILs employees conducted a training session at the defendants premises. Normally the contract is only concluded when the acceptance is communicated by the offeree to the offeror. 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. This, in a nutshell, is the issue at the heart of these proceedings. 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). 4, 1971, p. 331. Chwee Kin Keong vs Digilandmall.com - Free download as Powerpoint Presentation (.ppt / .pptx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or view presentation slides online. Consideration was less than executory and non-existent. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Application of such a rule may however result in contracts being formed outside the jurisdiction if not properly drafted. It would be illogical to have different approaches for different product sales over the Internet. The second, third, fourth and sixth plaintiffs are the only individuals who ordered more than a hundred laser printers each. 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 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. 107 As the law now stands, mistakes that are not fundamental or which do not relate to an essential term do not vitiate consent. The E-Mail Acceptance Rule. In the High Court, the learned judge ("the Judge") decided, in the main, in favour of the Purchaser. The fact that it may have been negligent is not a relevant factor in these proceedings. He holds an accounting degree from NTU. He in effect forwarded the first plaintiffs e-mail to them. 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. In this case, Defendant was selling IT products over internet in Singapore. In the Singapore context a similar approach has been adopted by the Court of Appeal in, 105 It is not only reasonable but right that the objective appearance of a contract should not operate in favour of a party who is aware, in the eyes of the law, of the true state of affairs when, for instance, there is real misapprehension on the part of the mistaken party and when the actual reality of the situation is starkly obvious. In light of these general observations, I now address the law on unilateral mistake. *You can also browse our support articles here >. 91 There is no real conundrum as to whether contractual principles apply to Internet contracts. The Vienna Sales Convention (the Convention) applies in Singapore as a consequence of the Sale of Goods (United Nations Convention) Act (Cap283A, 1996Rev Ed). They have taken into account both the English and Australian authorities in distilling the jurisprudence in this area. The recipient rule is therefore more convenient and relevant in the context of both instantaneous or near instantaneous communications. 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. Case law chwee kin keong v digilandmallcom pte ltd Date of Verdicts: 12 April 2004, 13 January 2005. The credit card payments had not been processed. 49 Tan Cheng Pengs brief evidence did not really assist the third plaintiff. David Baxter Edward Thomas and Peter Sandford Gander v BPE Solicitors (a firm) [2010] EWHC 306 (Ch) Dunlop v Higgins (1848) 1 HLC 381. His credibility on the material points was dubious, at best. Why? Sometimes this is made explicit by judges; more often it is the implied basis of the courts decision. The defendants argued this pricing was a unilateral mistake and that the complainants took advantage of this. [2005] SGCA 2 - eLitigation Not all one-sided transactions or bargains are improper. 124 A number of decisions over the last five decades emanating from several common law jurisdictions even go so far as to suggest that with the integration of the courts of common law and equity, equitable principles now hold sway and that earlier common law decisions need reinterpretation. He also claimed to have talked to buyers in the market about reselling the laser printers and that the failure to procure the units would tarnish his reputation. The point is, there is a chasm between a clarification amendment and a new or distinct issue being raised at a later stage. That said, it also offers new avenues of evidential proof offering intimate insights into realtime thought processes and reactions. He is also a director and shareholder in a company engaging in wholesale trade, together with the second and third plaintiffs. 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. 41 The second plaintiff seems to have redefined the facts to achieve his objective in these proceedings. 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 Court name Singapore High Court. The mere fact that they suddenly engage in predatory and atypical behaviour may in itself be telling. 98 Once an offer is sent over the Internet, the sender loses control over the route and delivery time of the message. Offer and acceptances have to reach an intended recipient to be efective. 81 Plaintiffs counsel thereafter responded somewhat curiously. 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. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. The pleadings, in such instances, merely formalise what is already before the court. This is essentially a matter of language and intention, objectively ascertained. He graduated from NTU as a bachelor of business studies, specialising in financial analysis.