chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court

Document Citado por Relacionados. This could account for the substantial number of Canadian cases in this area of the law. 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. Others do not. Cases of fraud and misrepresentation, and undue influence, are all catered for under other existing and uncontentious equitable rules. He was also a partner in what is described as a printing business. Administrative Law in Common Law Countries. In this case, Defendant was selling IT products over internet in Singapore. 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. 142 The plaintiffs were bound by personal relationships as well as past and present common commercial interests. 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. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:47 u make me greedy, Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:47 ok lor if you insist . six plaintiffs ordered 1,606 printers. In effect the Internet conveniently integrates into a single screen traditional advertising, catalogues, shop displays/windows and physical shopping. 21 The first plaintiff must have realised at the outset that he would have to explain with a certain measure of credibility the purport and significance of all his Internet communications between 1.00am and 3.00am on 13January 2003. 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. This thread helps to rationalise the development of the common law but ought not to be viewed as supporting the existence of a general test of commercial morality tantamount to the test of unconscionability invoked by equity. 91 There is no real conundrum as to whether contractual principles apply to Internet contracts. In other words, he really wanted to ascertain the true price of the laser printer. But there would have, at least, to be some real reason to suppose the existence of a mistake before it could be incumbent on one party to question whether another party meant what he or she said. 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. 25 The mass e-mail at 2.58am is cursorily dismissed by counsel for the plaintiffs as poor use of language that ought not to be taken literally in light of the early hours of the morning. , In mutual mistake, the parties misunderstand each other and are at cross-purposes. It can be persuasively argued that e-mails involving transactions embraced by the Convention are only effective on reaching the recipient. Normally the contract is only concluded when the acceptance is communicated by the offeree to the offeror. The argument is that, despite appearances, there is no real correspondence of offer and acceptance and that therefore the transaction must necessarily be void. He was also involved in initiating the Channel NewsAsia report (see [78] and [79] infra). [emphasis added]. The essence of unilateral mistake is the knowledge or deemed knowledge of a mistake and though fraud may often be present it is not an essential ingredient. The same view is echoed in Halsburys Laws of Singapore vol7 (Butterworths Asia, 2000) at [80.164]. Alarm bells would have sounded immediately. In Chwee Kin Keong v . 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. It can however be observed that in mass mistake cases, even when there is no direct evidence as in these proceedings, the court could be prepared to pragmatically assume actual or deemed knowledge of the manifest mistake. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. 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. Singapore Law Blog This contention is wholly untenable. By their own admission, they made Internet searches through various search engines to ascertain the profits they could make. The goods are not on offer but are said to be an invitation to treat. This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. He is also a director and shareholder in a company engaging in wholesale trade, together with the second and third plaintiffs. David Baxter Edward Thomas and Peter Sandford Gander v BPE Solicitors (a firm) [2010] EWHC 306 (Ch) Dunlop v Higgins (1848) 1 HLC 381. The court found that parties when . 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. The issue could be critical where third party rights are in issue as in Shogun. Indeed, I am satisfied to the contrary. MrYeow said: After we ordered, the very next day, some of us have even gone up to talk to buyers in the market about the units. 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.. This case is a paradigm example of an error on the human side. 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. The Postal Acceptance Rule in the Digital Age - ResearchGate 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. They even discussed the possible scenario of the defendant not honouring the transactions. It appears that in Convention transactions, the receipt rule applies unless there is a contrary intention. 79 The second, third and fifth plaintiffs tried their best to distance themselves from the quotes attributed to them. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:43 yeah man whats the original price? Our conclusion is that it is impossible to reconcile Solle v Butcher with Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. 73 The sixth plaintiffs orders did not receive matching confirmations from the defendant as his e-mail box was full. 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. Chwee Kin K eong and others . 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. He was amicus curiae to the Court of Appeal of Singapore in the case of Chwee Kin Keong & Ors v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, the leading Singapore case on unilateral mistake in the digital environment. 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?? Secondly, widening the scope of mistake, unilateral or otherwise, under the rubric of equitable mistake will, with its malleability, only encourage uncertainty and litigation. Sometimes this is made explicit by judges; more often it is the implied basis of the courts decision. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:25 I think one of the wrong posted price, Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:25 damn dont tell me they realised their error already, Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:32 shiok can make a quick profit by selling them cheap shd buy more. hahaha means S$132, Desmond 13/01/20 01:43 even $500 is a steal. 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). 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. 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 . But it is difficult to see how that can apply here. In his initial affidavit he admitted wondering whether the price was a mistake after his first order was placed. 48 The third plaintiff annexed to his affidavit the transcript of the Channel NewsAsia report where he was quoted. The plaintiffs refute that the error exonerates the defendant; they insist that a concluded contract is sacrosanct and must be honoured. 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. 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. I granted leave to both parties to file applications to amend the pleadings. It is asserted that since mistake had not been pleaded as an equitable defence, equity cannot be invoked by the defendant. Notwithstanding occasional failure, most e-mails arrive sooner rather than later. 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; 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. 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. He claimed that when he could not find the identical model on the US HP website he had assumed initially that the laser printer might be obsolete and was therefore being off-loaded cheaply at $66. 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. 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. The caption in each of the e-mails Successful Purchase Confirmation from HP online says it all. 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.)]. [emphasis added]. 27 The first plaintiff obviously took the view that the advertisement should be acted upon urgently. 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. The plaintiffs attempted to take advantage of the defendants mistake over the Internet. 100 There is however another statute that ought to be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate default rule in e-commerce transactions. It was only then that the defendant promptly took steps to remove all references to the laser printer from all three websites. He received this information through an sms message. The fact that the acceptance was automatically generated by a computer software cannot in any manner exonerate the defendant from responsibility. Users may find that it may not be as forgiving as more traditional methods of communications. 95 The known availability of stock could be an important distinguishing factor between a physical sale and an Internet transaction. There are many different shades of sharp practice or impropriety. Prior to being self-employed, he was a corporate banker with Standard Chartered Bank, Singapore, for four years. (2d) Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall [2004 ] SGHC 71 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. Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532 Omnium D'Enterprises v . COURT. Where either mutual or unilateral mistake is pleaded, the very existence of agreement is denied. 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. Their reference to arbitraging was a nebulous fig leaf designed to legitimise their conduct in a cloak of legal and commercial respectability. [2005] SGCA 2 - eLitigation However, not all principles will or can apply in the same manner that they apply to traditional paper-based and oral contracts. Needless to say, he could not satisfactorily explain why his previous solicitors had formed such a view when preparing his affidavit and why he had affirmed the same. 30 Tan Wei Teck is 30 years old. 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. 151 The claims by the plaintiffs are audacious, opportunistic and contrived. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. The web page entitled checkout order confirmation had a notation stating the earliest date on which we can deliver all the products to you is based on the longest estimated time of stock availability plus the delivery lead time. Ltd. Yeo Tiong Min* I. This pricing was a mistake, which was fundamental to the contract and the complainants must have known that this absurdly low pricing was an error by the defendants. The brief will discuss whether a tort of invasion of privacy should be developed by the courts. 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. 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. . 118 The Canadian courts have been the most active common law courts explicating and developing this area of the law. To determine the profit potential, the second plaintiff had to take steps to ascertain the true market price of the laser printer which he did. 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. 96 In an Internet sale, a prospective purchaser is not able to view the physical stock available. 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. Furthermore, they relied on a passage from Singapore Civil Procedure 2003 (Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 2003) at para20/8/47 that asserts: At the trial leave to amend particulars will as a rule be refused (Moss v Malings (1886) 83ChD 603). Such errors can be magnified almost instantaneously and may be harder to detect than if made in a face to face transaction or through physical document exchanges. The appellants featured prominently because of the size of their orders. They assumed that to be the position. The only court judgement on the theme is Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, a judgement of the Singapore High Court. A prospective purchaser is entitled to rely on the terms of the web advertisement. 35 In addition to these conversations, the second plaintiff also accessed the Epinions website and sent a related e-mail to the first plaintiff. In light of this, the parties did not address me on the issue of when the contract was formed, though this appears to be a relevant issue depending on which rule is adopted. That is sufficient in these circumstances. There is no merit at all in this contention. The Canadian and Australian cases have moved along with the eddies of unconscionability. Consideration was less than executory and non-existent. The shopping cart website page carried the insertion call to enquire under the heading Availability of product. 8 The proper description of the laser printer, HPC9660A Color LaserJet 4600, was, as a result of the accident, replaced by the numerals 55; while the numerals 66 replaced the correct price of the laser printer priced at $3,854 and the numerals 77 replaced the original corporate price of the laser printer priced at $3,448. 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. He offered to buy a laser printer from Desmond at double the price, that is $132. COOTE, B. They contended that the entire ICQ conversation, infused with such a jocular tone, should be disregarded. Daniel was previously a partner and head of the technology practice at Messrs Rajah & Tann. In such cases, where the purchaser has readily accessible means from the very same computer screen, to ascertain through a simple search whether a mistake has taken place, the onus could be upon him to exonerate himself of imputed knowledge of the mistake. 96 In an Internet sale, a prospective purchaser is not able to view the physical stock available. . Lord Griffiths in, 87 It appeared to me that the extract from, 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 (, 95 The known availability of stock could be an important distinguishing factor between a physical sale and an Internet transaction. 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. He was aware that the laser printers were targeted for business use. As the Channel NewsAsia report so succinctly summarised they saw a great opportunity and grabbed it. 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. In a Straits Times report dated 15January 2003 captioned $66 printer error angry customers seek lawyers help, it was reported that the second plaintiff, described as a network marketer had on 13January at about 2.00am stumbled upon a offer he could not believe $66 for a Hewlett Packard laserjet printer that normally sells for $3,854 before GST. 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. [emphasis added]. He would make some basic enquiries to ascertain whether there is anything faulty with the product in an attempt to seek an explanation for or understanding of the basis for the price discrepancy; he might alternatively try and ascertain whether perhaps the price differential is part of some spectacular promotional exercise. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! The defendant has expressly pleaded unilateral mistake. Certainty in commercial transactions should not be trifled with, as this will inevitably affect how commercial and business exchanges are respected and effected. 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.

Oc Maker Picrew Full Body, Was Dirty Dancing Nominated For An Academy Award, Kubernetes Connect To External Oracle Database, Articles C