chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court
- See also Balfour v. Balfour (1919). The fact that it may have been negligent is not a relevant factor in these proceedings. Someone referred me to the HP website which shows the price of this HP Colour LaserJet 4600 Series as S$66.00. The defendant, Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, were an online IT company that sold related software and hardware from Singapore. Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502; [2005] SGCA 2. 70 The third plaintiff proceeded to place orders on behalf of the sixth plaintiff on the HP website. At 4.16am he placed another order for one laser printer, by credit card, on the HP website. Though he initially denied this in cross-examination, he had to accept this when confronted with his own e-mail as irrefutable evidence. 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. Counsels approach is flawed. 65 He was particularly circumspect in recounting his communications with the second plaintiff. It appears to suggest that even if an offer is snapped up, the contract is not void. The fourth plaintiffs single transaction with the Digilandmall website was confirmed by a similar automated response stating Successful Purchase Confirmation from Digilandmall. Both parties expressed that they wished to effect amendments to mirror evidence that had been adduced in the proceedings. 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. 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. 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. 56 He vacillated throughout his evidence between a propensity to embellish his evidence on the one hand and to hold back on the other. 119 It is apparent from this overview that the Canadian courts have integrated through their equitable jurisdiction the concept of common law mistake within the rubric of unconscionability. 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. 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 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. Again he attempted to minimise the impact of these observations by saying his subsequent searches erased all such doubts. Despite their familial relationship, the legal relationship between the two of them was that of agent and principal. 19 Later in the morning, at about 4.15am, the fourth plaintiff sent the following e-mail to the first plaintiff, copied to the second plaintiff only: Subject: Re: IMPT HP Colour LaserJet going at only $66!! The defendants argued this pricing was a unilateral mistake and that the complainants took advantage of this. The rules of offer and acceptance are satisfied and the parties are of one mind. Notwithstanding, the defendant does not take issue with this as the sixth plaintiffs orders were received and the appropriate automated responses generated. COOTE, B. Normally, however, the task involves no more than an objective analysis of the words used by the parties. 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. Ltd.1 has the makings of a student's classic for several reasons: it presents a textbook . Given its global reach and ever changing technological advancements, Internet usage will pose a myriad of issues for resolution. I must add that I did not really think this was necessary and subsequent events confirmed my perception. 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. Chwee KIN Keong AND Others v Digilandmall.COM PTE LTD [2004 ] SGHC 71 paginator.book page 594 tuesday, november 2009 7:05 am 594 singapore law reports (reissue . Clout issue 43. His Internet research alone would have confirmed that. 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. In his initial affidavit he admitted wondering whether the price was a mistake after his first order was placed. Whether the parties have reached agreement on the terms is not determined by evidence of the subjective intention of each party. 154 Interestingly, of the 784 persons who placed 1,008 orders for 4,086 laser printers, only these six plaintiffs have attempted to enforce their purported contractual rights. They have taken into account both the English and Australian authorities in distilling the jurisprudence in this area. It is unequivocally unethical conduct tantamount to sharp practice. This constituted more than a quarter of the total number of laser printers ordered. reference was made by the court to "fraud or a very high degree of misconduct" before the non- mistaken party could be . He claims visiting, 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings. 100 There is however another statute that ought to be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate default rule in e-commerce transactions. He admitted in cross-examination to being the lawyer for this group of people when they had questions like these in the present proceedings. In doing so, they appear to have also conflated equitable and common law concepts. Mutual promises, by all accounts, on the basis of existing case law, more than amply constitute consideration. 98 Once an offer is sent over the Internet, the sender loses control over the route and delivery time of the message. Examples of such mistakes would include (a)human error (b)programming of software errors and (c)transmission problems in the communication systems. 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. Furthermore, they relied on a passage from, At the trial leave to amend particulars will as a rule be refused (, 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. To that extent, his evidence that he subsequently dismissed the notion altogether is unacceptable. 109 This cautious statement by Chitty needs to be carefully reconsidered in the context of recent developments in this area of law. 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. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. When the defendant learnt of the error, it promptly removed the advertisement from its websites, and informed the plaintiffs as well as 778 others who had placed orders for a total of 4,086 laser printers that the price posting was an unfortunate error, and that it would therefore not be meeting the orders. It will firstly discuss the fact that such a tort Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Being fully conscious of the pivotal nature of this point, I have duly accorded particular attention to the evidence and credibility of each of the plaintiffs. Similar works. High Court and Court of Appeal, recently, in a number of case . 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. One of the few cases on electronic contract formation in Singapore was Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall. , In mutual mistake, the parties misunderstand each other and are at cross-purposes. Date of Verdicts: 12 April 2004, 13 January 2005. chwee kin keong and others digilandmall.com pte ltd sghc 71 case number suit decision date 12 april 2004 high court coram rajah jc counsel name(s) tan sok ling Skip to document Ask an Expert Sign inRegister Sign inRegister Home Ask an ExpertNew My Library Discovery Institutions Republic Polytechnic London School of Business and Finance Court name Singapore High Court. The reach of and potential response(s) to such an advertisement are however radically different. V K Rajah JC: Para continuar leyendo. After all, what would he do with 100 obsolete commercial laser printers? The decision of V.K. There could be different considerations. 96 In an Internet sale, a prospective purchaser is not able to view the physical stock available. I drew counsels attention to Halsburys Laws of Australia (Butterworths, 1992), vol6 at para 110-5550 which states: A particular class of case which illustrates unilateral mistake as to the terms intended, known to the other party, is that in which an offer which would be very advantageous to the offeree is snapped up by the offeree. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:25 ok but how come got such a good deal? They are not mechanical rules to be applied in a vacuum, devoid of a contextual setting. Web Communication: A Review Of Chwee Kin Keong And Others v. Digilandmall.com pte ltd by Rokiah Kadir [2009] 8 CLJ xxi. See now, also, No cash had been collected. There were no such discussions with potential buyers. 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. Daniel was previously a partner and head of the technology practice at Messrs Rajah & Tann. 681) when the court had to decide the moment of contr act formation by post. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. The brief will discuss whether a tort of invasion of privacy should be developed by the courts. As for the common law on unilateral mistake, it is claimed that the acid test for its application is not satisfied. 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. 125 The principal source of this view has been Lord DenningMR. The only court judgement on the theme is Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, a judgement of the Singapore High Court. Mistakes are usually synonymous with the existence of carelessness on the part of the mistaken party. In terms of chronological sequence, the initial page accessed was the shopping cart, followed by checkout-order . 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. His credibility on the material points was dubious, at best. 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. 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. The recipient rule appears to be the logical default rule. 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. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:33 as many as I can! The knowledge that the offer is not meant according to its literal terms simply displaces the objective theory of contract. 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. Quite apart from this singularly precise timing, his exchange with Ms Toh is noteworthy for the following reason: when he told her about the various concluded purchases of the laser printers, she immediately thought it was a mistake and that HP would not honour the contracts. V K Rajah JC. 53 He claimed that seeing the same price on the Digilandmall website confirmed his view that there had been no mistake. Having ascertained that the laser printer was being advertised at $66, he decided to undertake further online searches through Yahoo.com and Ebay.com. A particular class of case which illustrates unilateral mistake as to the terms intended, known to the other party, is that in which an offer which would be very advantageous to the offeree is snapped up by the offeree. There can be no other reasonable explanation. 141 In so far as the sixth plaintiff is concerned, I emphasise that his knowledge and/or conduct of should be equated with that of the third plaintiff. 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. He is described by his counsel in submissions as a prudent and careful person. It argues that the decision is both fair and economically grounded, and proposes an alternative view to that offered by classical contract law - one that sees fairness intertwined 32 Satisfied with his enquiries in relation to the printer model, he returned to the HP website and placed an order for 100 laser printers at about 2.23am. [emphasis added]. Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 Chapelton v Barry UDC [1940] 1 KB 532 Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786 Chappell v Nestl [1960] AC 87 Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com [2006] 1 LRC 37 CIBC Mortgages v Pitt [1994] 1 AC 200 - Undue . Delivery was merely a timing issue. [emphasis added]. The rationale for this is that a court will not sanction a contract where there is no, 150 The plaintiffs have contended that this court ought to follow the decision in, A thread runs through our contract law that effect must be given to, 152 This view has also found support in the Singapore context. 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. 131 In a number of cases, including the present, it may not really matter which view is preferred. Where common mistake is pleaded, the presence of agreement is admitted. Civil Procedure Pleadings . 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. Nor could he satisfactorily explain why he initially made the Internet searches to ensure the offer was genuine. The point is, there is a chasm between a clarification amendment and a new or distinct issue being raised at a later stage. He is also a director and shareholder in a company engaging in wholesale trade, together with the second and third plaintiffs. 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. There is often, but not inexorably, a co-relationship between the timing when the amendment is sought and the adverse consequences for the other party. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR 502: [2005] SGCA 2 Context: This Case deals with the issue of unilateral mistake. 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. Yet in other aspects, he could recollect, with crystal clear precision and clarity, details of what had transpired. In Canada, the latter suffices. 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. Looking for a flexible role? Desmond: 13/01/20 01:41 u want it for profit or personal use? Be that as it may, the fifth plaintiff, soon after he received MsTohs research, shared the information with the second and third plaintiffs. 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. 64 The fifth plaintiff was vague and tentative in many crucial aspects of his evidence. 33 See the Singapore Court of Appeal decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd[2005] 1 SLR 502 (noted by Yeo, TM ' Great Peace: a distant disturbance ' (2005) 121 Law Quarterly Review 393 Google Scholar; KFK Low 'Unilateral mistake at common law and in equity' [2005] Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 423; and PW . Homestead Assets Sdn Bhd v. Contramec . I accept that this is capable of including circumstances in which a person refrains from or simply fails to make enquiries for which the situation reasonably calls and which would have led to discovery of the mistake. His revelation that he did not know if this is an error or whether HP will honour this purchase, not to mention the articulation of his hope that by the time you see this email, the price is still at S$66.00 coz they might change it anytime, are all compelling in reflecting his state of mind and awareness that an error had occurred. He had left everything to his brother. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. He has incorporated an Internet business Dreamcupid in which the second plaintiff has an interest. Such conduct is akin to that of an unscrupulous commercial predator seeking to take advantage of an error by an unsuspecting prey by pouncing upon it before the latter has an opportunity to react or raise a shield of defence. 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. Once again, however, this does not deprive E of his legal remedies; nor does it avail V if he wishes to recover property which he may have transferred under the contract. 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. Application of such a rule may however result in contracts being formed outside the jurisdiction if not properly drafted. He is also part of the Bel-Air network. There must be consensus ad idem. 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. chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court. Two issues had arisen. 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. Doctrines and Institutions of Responsible Government. 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 first plaintiff introduced him to the other plaintiffs. 130 It can be persuasively argued that given (a)the historical pedigree of the cases, (b)the dictates of certainty and predictability in the business community and (c)the general acceptance of the existence of distinct common law rules, it is preferable not to conflate these concepts. 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. We can understand why the decision in Bell v Lever Bros Ltd did not find favour with Lord DenningMR. An equitable jurisdiction to grant rescission on terms where a common fundamental mistake has induced a contract gives greater flexibility than a doctrine of common law which holds the contract void in such circumstances. Different protocols may result in messages arriving in an incomprehensible form. Upon completing this sequence, each of the orders placed by the plaintiffs was confirmed by automated responses from the respective websites stating Successful Purchase Confirmation from HP online. The fact that it may have been negligent is not a relevant factor in these proceedings. He opted to pay for all his purchases by cash on delivery. 78 In a Channel NewsAsia report datelined 15January 2003, it was reported that: Two of the customers, Mark Yeow and Malcolm Tan, have already spoken to their lawyers. An e-mail, while bearing some similarity to a postal communication, is in some aspects fundamentally different. 42 Mark Yeow Kinn Keong has a Bachelor of Science (Economics) degree from the University of London.
chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court