chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court

After receiving the e-mail from the first plaintiff, he visited the relevant HP website pages. Amendments after conclusion of submissions. 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. If the defendant were right, they maintain, uncertainty would prevail in the commercial world and more particularly in Internet transactions. He opted to pay for all his purchases by cash on delivery. 58 The fifth plaintiff was first informed by the second plaintiff at about 2.30am about cheap laser printers being available for purchase. There are, however, other sound reasons to argue against such a rule in favour of the recipient rule. Promotions would be indicated by a P inside a yellow circle next to the product in question. The payment mode opted for was cash on delivery. The plaintiffs are, however, entitled to the cost of the amendments, in any event, which I fix at $1,000. It presents a textbook example of offer and acceptance. 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. In Canada, the latter suffices. 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. The plaintiffs orders were processed by the defendants automated system and confirmation notes were automatically despatched to the plaintiffs within a few minutes. Voces del tesauro. As a lawyer, he appears to have been indispensable in the plaintiffs attempts to hold the defendant to the bargain. The defendant also sells HP products on its own website at http://www.digiland.com (the Digilandmall website). 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. 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. Plaintiffs counsel indicated that they wanted to further particularise the sixth plaintiffs purchase orders. The e-mails sent at 2.34am were also captioned Go load it now! This is much closer to the truth than the picture he has tried to paint in these proceedings. 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. Claiming he was in a light-hearted kind of mood during his ICQ (acronym for I-Seek-You) conversation with Desmond, he insisted that this conversation should be taken neither seriously nor literally. The recipients of this e-mail included the second, fourth, fifth plaintiffs and Tan Cheng Peng, the third plaintiffs girlfriend. There are persuasive arguments against extending the litmus test of unconscionability to all mistake-type situations. He classifies mistake in the following manner at 386: If attention is fixed merely on the factual situations, there are three possible types of mistake: common, mutual and unilateral. There cannot be any legitimate expectation of enforcement on the part of the non-mistaken party seeking to take advantage of appearances. Evidence was given that if phone calls were indeed placed, they would from time to time limit the number of sales. 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. He was also involved in initiating the Channel NewsAsia report (see [78] and [79], 77 Soon after the defendant informed the plaintiffs that they did not intend to deliver the laser printers, the plaintiffs took their claims to the press. Added to his own purchases of 760 units, he was effectively responsible for the purchase of 1,090 laser printers. How could one seek to calculate the profit margin before finding out the true market price of the laser printer? Ltd.1 has the makings of a student's classic for several rea- The credit card payments had not been processed. So its going to be our reputation at stake, we thought we had a successful transaction.. While these contentions were well within the scope of the evidence adduced and their respective lines of cross-examination, they appeared to transgress their respective pleadings. . v . 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. The sender will usually receive a prompt response. That said, it also offers new avenues of evidential proof offering intimate insights into realtime thought processes and reactions. 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. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:40 if any friend got extra printer u want? 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. It was found that the plaintiffs must have known or realised that the offer did not express the true intention of the defendants. Certainty in commercial transactions should not be trifled with, as this will inevitably affect how commercial and business exchanges are respected and effected. With reference to the judgement, the case explores pricing mistakes by online stores. I cannot accept that. 108 Chitty on Contracts (28th Ed, 1999) vol1 observes at para5-035: It is not clear whether for the mistake to be operative it must actually be known to the other party, or whether it is enough that it ought to have been apparent to any reasonable man. COOKE v OXLEY (1790) 3 T. R. 653. Notwithstanding occasional failure, most e-mails arrive sooner rather than later. This was not noticed by the company until over 4,000 printers were ordered. No modern authority was cited to me suggesting an intended commercial transaction of this nature could ever fail for want of consideration. 11 The single most controversial issue in these proceedings is the knowledge possessed and/or belief entertained by each of the plaintiffs when they entered into each of the transactions for the purchase of the laser printers. in the High Court decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd,2 from the perspective of economics. I find it inconceivable, to say the least, that the fifth plaintiff would have placed an order for 100 laser printers without the conviction that it was in fact a current market model with a real and substantial resale value. The fifth plaintiff, even if he had not been alerted by the second plaintiff, would have instinctively appreciated the existence of a manifest error without any prompting whatsoever. V K Rajah JC: Para continuar leyendo. He offered to buy a laser printer from Desmond at double the price, that is $132. The marrow of contractual relationships should be the parties intention to create a legal relationship. 46 He was therefore aware, even before he made his first purchase, that the actual price of the laser printer was in the region of US$2,000. Cases of fraud and misrepresentation, and undue influence, are all catered for under other existing and uncontentious equitable rules. This is an area that needs to be rationalised in a coherent and structured manner. 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. 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. It appears there were a series of sms messages between them and at least a few telephone discussions while the purchases were being effected. 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. It is essential that the law be perceived as embodying rationality and fairness while respecting the commercial imperative of certainty. Counsels approach is flawed. The same view is echoed in Halsburys Laws of Singapore vol7 (Butterworths Asia, 2000) at [80.164]. Some of the plaintiffs appeared rather coy or ignorant in this regard but I did not find their performance believable. 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. 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. 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. Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] SGCA 2 Civil Procedure Costs , Civil Procedure Pleadings , Contract Mistake Decision Date: 13 Jan 2005 . 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. 88 The fact that the amending party has been tardy or even negligent is a factor that a court can (and in some egregious cases, should) take into account but this is by no means a decisive factor (cf Ketteman v Hansel Properties). The leading Canadian decision in this area is the case of, 120 The widening of jurisdiction to embrace a broad equitable jurisdiction could well encourage litigious behaviour and promote uncertainty. The contract stands according to the natural meaning of the words used. Established common law principles, in the arena of mistake, ought not be trifled with unless they are so obviously anachronistic and ill-suited to commercial and legal pragmatism. Part of the training module included hands-on training with a new template for a Price Mass Upload function. 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. He claimed he wanted to find out how much profit he could make. It appears to suggest that even if an offer is snapped up, the contract is not void. This is approved in a Singaporean case, Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd . They even discussed the possible scenario of the defendant not honouring the transactions. The effect of Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 is not to supplement or mitigate the common law: it is to say that Bell v Lever Bros Ltd was wrongly decided. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: This selection of essays, case summaries and dissertations is of relevance to law students within the Commonwealth and for those students who are studying the Rule of Law from outside the Commonwealth . 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. As a lawyer, he appears to have been indispensable in the plaintiffs attempts to hold the defendant to the bargain. In terms of chronological sequence, the initial page accessed was the shopping cart, followed by checkout-order particulars, checkout-order confirmation, check-out payment details and payment whether by cash on delivery or by credit card. 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. 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. 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. The law will have to organically adapt itself to respond to new challenges without compromising on certainty and fairness. Case Summary 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: It is not necessary to prove actual knowledge on the part of the non-mistaken party in order to ground relief, as, 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. Chwee Kin K eong and others . 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. 30 Tan Wei Teck is 30 years old. 110 In OT Africa Line Ltd v Vickers Plc [1996] 1Lloyds Rep 700 at 703, ManceJ held that the objective theory ought not to apply if a party had knowledge that a mistake had occurred: The question is what is capable of displacing that apparent agreement. His credibility on the material points was dubious, at best. Section11 of the ETA expressly provides that offers and acceptances may be made electronically. Before dealing with the point of real substance, it is appropriate to briefly deal with two of the less meritorious contentions advanced. 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings. Basic principles of contract law continue to prevail in contracts made on the Internet. Thus the task of ascertaining whether the parties have reached agreement as to the terms of a contract can involve quite a complex amalgam of the objective and the subjective and involve the application of a principle that bears close comparison with the doctrine of estoppel. He received this information through an sms message. 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. Other Jurisdictions. The answer on the authorities is a mistake by one party of which the other knew or ought reasonably to have known. The complainants argued that they were not aware that this price was a mistake and wanted the binding contract to be fulfilled. They are not entitled to the costs of the subsequent brief hearing, for reasons I now deal with summarily. 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 is unequivocally unethical conduct tantamount to sharp practice. Users may find that it may not be as forgiving as more traditional methods of communications.

Pluto In 1st House Relationships, How Did Sidney Gottlieb Die, Darryl Mcdaniels Parents, Actors In Medicare Commercial 2021, Articles C