chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court

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. Phang, Controversy in Common Mistake [2003] Conv 247; Reynolds, Reconsider the Contract Textbooks (2003) 119LQR 177. 45 The most telling aspect of the third plaintiffs evidence is his admission that he made Internet searches relating to the pricing of the laser printer, immediately after he was contacted by the first plaintiff. The Vienna Sales Convention (the Convention) applies in Singapore as a consequence of the Sale of Goods (United Nations Convention) Act (Cap283A, 1996Rev Ed). The plaintiffs assert they were not aware of the defendants mistake when they placed their orders, and had believed the offer was genuine. In common mistake, both parties make the same mistake. 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. If he was prepared to commit this view in writing to a larger circle of 54 friends and business associates, 47 Not content with making his own purchases, he woke up his brother and transacted 330 units on his behalf. Offer and acceptances have to reach an intended recipient to be efective. As a lawyer, he appears to have been indispensable in the plaintiffs attempts to hold the defendant to the bargain. 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. Despite the general views expressed in Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151CLR 422 on equitable mistake, it seems to be generally accepted in Australia as well, that this class of cases requires special mention and consideration. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd Case No.s Suit 202/2003/E (for the first instance), CA/30/2004 (for the appeal) Name and level of courts High Court of Singapore(at first instance), Singapore Court of Appeal Member of courts VK Rajah, JC (for the first instance), Chao Hick Tin JA, Kan Ting Chiu J, Yong Pung How CJ Thus, while the idea of snapping up may well apply in cases one side is aware of the other sides error, I do not think it can be applied literally in the constructive knowledge cases. The E-Mail Acceptance Rule. He graduated from NTU as a bachelor of business studies, specialising in financial analysis. Both parties displayed a considerable amount of imagination in dealing with them. Furthermore, unlike a fax or a telephone call, it is not instantaneous. 5 A related website for corporate clients and re-sellers (the Digiland commerce website) is owned and operated by a related entity, Digiland International Limited (DIL). 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 do not know if this is an error or whether HP will honour this purchase. At 4.15am, he sent an email to the first plaintiff, copied to the second plaintiff, with a happy emoticon following check out the prices here (see [19] supra). The case of, The offer was wrongly expressed, and the defendants by their evidence, and by the correspondence, have satisfied me that the plaintiff, 116 The term snapping up was aptly coined by JamesLJ in, 117 It should be emphasised that this stream of authority is consistently recognised by all the major common law jurisdictions. The terms of the offer are clear and unambiguous and the offeree accepts the offer according to its true sense, Although a mistaken party will not often be able to discharge the onus of showing that the other party, 118 The Canadian courts have been the most active common law courts explicating and developing this area of the law. The first, second and third plaintiffs have been friends for a long time and are bound by common business interests. 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. 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 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. 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. Adopting an objective standard, executory contracts have in fact been entered into and concluded between the parties. Chwee Kin Keong decision - Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594; - Studocu Caso chwee kin keong and others digilandmall.com pte ltd slr sghc 71 suit no: suit decision 12 apr 2004 date: court: coram: counsel: high court rajah jc tan sok IgnorarExperimenta 'Pergunta a um Especialista' Pergunta a um especialista 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. A court will not enforce the plaintiffs purported contracts even if they are not void. Indeed, in difficult cases, the courts in several common law jurisdictions have gone to extraordinary lengths to conjure up consideration. 99 Like the somewhat arbitrary selection of the postal rule for ordinary mail, in the ultimate analysis, a default rule should be implemented for certainty, while accepting that such a rule should be applied flexibly to minimise unjustness. Certainty in commercial transactions should not be trifled with, as this will inevitably affect how commercial and business exchanges are respected and effected. 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. Indeed this appears to be the underlying rationale for the unique legal characteristics attributed to an invitation to treat; see. There were altogether 1,008 purchase orders for the laser printers placed by 784 individuals between 8 and 13January 2003. 140 The defendant has however properly asserted that there was a unilateral mistake that vitiated all the contracts. Alternatively, knowledge may be readily inferred from what would be regarded as commonly known or notorious facts in the context of the transaction. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:43 coz the HP laser colour printer sells for at least 3 to 4k outside, Desmond 13/01/20 01:44 from US I heard is about USD 2k, Desmond 13/01/20 01:44 its HP and Laser and Coloured. This was also the practice in the trade. It appears there were a series of sms messages between them and at least a few telephone discussions while the purchases were being effected. When giving evidence, he struck me as cautious, taking great pains to convey the impression that his numerous online enquiries that morning were routinely carried out without any real inkling that an error had occurred. Failure to do so could also result in calamitous repercussions. However, at the actual hearing of the applications, plaintiffs counsel opposed any amendments whatsoever to the defence and sought leave to withdraw the plaintiffs earlier unilateral amendments. chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court. 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. Normally the contract is only concluded when the acceptance is communicated by the offeree to the offeror. Normally the contract is only concluded when the acceptance is communicated by the offeree to the offeror. The transcript states that the third and the fifth plaintiffs saw a great opportunity and grabbed it. V K Rajah JC. Is this a case of poetic justice? 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. 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 such cases, it would be unconscionable to enforce the bargain and equity will set aside the contract. 145 If the price of a product is so absurdly low in relation to its known market value, it stands to reason that a reasonable man would harbour a real suspicion that the price may not be correct or that there may be some troubling underlying basis for such a pricing. 100 There is however another statute that ought to be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate default rule in e-commerce transactions. While this is the general principle for shop displays, it is open to a merchant to offer by way of an advertisement the mechanics of a unilateral or bilateral contract. 7 At about 3.36pm, Samuel Teo, an employee of DIL, inadvertently uploaded the contents of the training template onto the Digiland commerce website operated by DIL, in place of the test website allocated for the training. When notified and satisfied that this transaction was successful as well, he placed a final order at 4.21am for ten laser printers on the HP website, charging this to his credit card. Unilateral Mistake at . This is a disingenuous contention that desperately attempts to palliate their conduct in the subject transactions. I cannot accept that. This contention is wholly untenable. 4 The defendant is a company that sells information technology (IT) related products over the Internet to consumers. Prior to being self-employed, he was a corporate banker with Standard Chartered Bank, Singapore, for four years. The e-mail was given a high importance priority and captioned go load it now!!. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. 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 . However, if the defendant did not have stock, it would immediately call the supplier and procure the products for the end-user. This gives their courts a broad and elastic jurisdiction to deal with commercially inappropriate behaviour. No cash had been collected. 72 To effect the purchase transactions on the respective websites, the plaintiffs had to navigate through several web pages. In the absence of proper and full arguments on the issue of which rule is to be preferred, I do not think it is appropriate for me to give any definitive views in these proceedings on this very important issue. The recipients of this e-mail included the second, fourth, fifth plaintiffs and Tan Cheng Peng, the third plaintiffs girlfriend. In such cases, it would be unconscionable to enforce the bargain and equity will set aside the contract, 26 I respectfully agree with the reasoning of ShawJ in. Borneo United Sawmills Sdn Bhd v. MUI Continental Insurance Bhd (Marine insurance - Loss of goods - Claim for loss of goods under Marine Cargo Policy) [2009] 8 CLJ 217. 98 Once an offer is sent over the Internet, the sender loses control over the route and delivery time of the message. 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. 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. This new template was designed to facilitate instantaneous price changes allowing them to be simultaneously reflected in the relevant Internet web pages. He claims visiting, 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings. Landmark decision on unilateral mistake of fact in respect of the price of product listed on an online mall and the purchases made thereon . The plaintiffs are, however, entitled to the cost of the amendments, in any event, which I fix at $1,000. The CISG has currently been adopted by 95 Contracting States world-wide. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:46 hahahaha yeah lor .. aiyah why u only buy 3????? 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. 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. 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. I am not prepared, after full consideration, to assume that the reporters misquoted the facts. This e-mail was sent only, 29 The first plaintiff struck me as an opportunistic entrepreneur. 138 Effectively, the defendant was attempting in this contention to assert that it could have its cake and eat it as well. 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. 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. If anything, certain portions of the affidavits raised even more doubts about the plaintiffs credibility. 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. 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. The pleadings, in such instances, merely formalise what is already before the court. 135 The defendant however asserts that there were no concluded contracts with any of the plaintiffs on a number of grounds. Examples of such mistakes would include (a)human error (b)programming of software errors and (c)transmission problems in the communication systems. Nor could he satisfactorily explain why he initially made the Internet searches to ensure the offer was genuine. 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. Secondly, widening the scope of mistake, unilateral or otherwise, under the rubric of equitable mistake will, with its malleability, only encourage uncertainty and litigation. Ltd.1 has the makings of a student's classic for several reasons: it presents a textbook . To my mind, the confirmation through the subsequent searches that the actual price of the laser printer was, in fact, US$2,000 would, if anything, have affirmed his belief that an error had occurred. 70 The third plaintiff proceeded to place orders on behalf of the sixth plaintiff on the HP website. 58 The fifth plaintiff was first informed by the second plaintiff at about 2.30am about cheap laser printers being available for purchase. 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. It can be persuasively argued that e-mails involving transactions embraced by the Convention are only effective on reaching the recipient. The goods are not on offer but are said to be an invitation to treat. The fifth plaintiff was also a member of this bridge group. A viewer from any part of the world may want to enter into a contract to purchase a product as advertised. 152 This view has also found support in the Singapore context. It is set in the context of internet contracting. 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. It had consciously not inserted any limits to the number of products a buyer could purchase again, quite clearly, to solicit more business. 107 As the law now stands, mistakes that are not fundamental or which do not relate to an essential term do not vitiate consent. . One of the few cases on electronic contract formation in Singapore was Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall. 55 The fourth plaintiff is technologically savvy and runs an Internet business with the second plaintiff. I note that there have been powerful arguments made to the contrary. 132 It can be seen from this brief excursus into the law of mistake that this is an abstruse area. The decision of V.K. Court Judgement chwee kin keong and others digilandmall.com pte ltd slr sghc 71 suit no: suit decision 12 apr 2004 date: court: coram: counsel: high court rajah Skip to document Ask an Expert Sign inRegister Sign inRegister Home Ask an ExpertNew My Library Discovery Institutions London School of Business and Finance SAA Global Education 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings. Not all one-sided transactions or bargains are improper. 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. 127 The attempt to conflate the concept of common law mistake and the equitable jurisdiction over mistake is understandable but highly controversial. 17 Having called the second and third plaintiffs at about 2.00am, the first plaintiff also sent them, via e-mail, a weblink of the relevant HP website pages. In these circumstances we can see no option but so to hold. The e-mails sent at 2.34am were also captioned Go load it now! He appeared distinctly uncomfortable during several phases of his cross-examination and his answers on crucial points were evasive and often vague.. His evidence in relation to the level and nature of communications he had with the second and third plaintiffs on the morning in question lacked candour.

Gallo Azul Gouda Cheese, What Does Thredup Do With Rejected Clothes, Articles C