chwee kin keong v digilandmall high courtchwee kin keong v digilandmall high court
Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. The court has to be astute and adopt a pragmatic and judicious stance in resolving such issues. 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. com Pte Ltd30 that was primarily about unilateral mistake. He is currently a supervisor in the taxation department of an international accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche, specialising in corporate taxation services. - See also Balfour v. Balfour (1919). 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. While commercial entities ought not to be given a licence to relax their vigilance, the policy considerations in refusing to enforce mistaken agreements militate against attaching undue weight to the carelessness involved in spawning the mistake. This view seems to suggest that principles of equity invariably provide an equally strong but more elastic second string to the bow. It is plain that the defendant had given careful consideration to this issue and was prepared to contract on the basis that it would be able to comply with any orders hence, there was no reference to any order being subject to stock availability. 52 He then called the second plaintiff on his handphone and informed him that he intended to purchase 50 laser printers. They deny having had any communications amongst themselves about the possibility, let alone probability, that the price posting on the website could have been a mistake. He is currently self-employed and is intimately involved in the multi-level marketing sales of aromatherapy products under the Bel-Air label. There are in this connection two schools of thought. 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. A prospective purchaser is entitled to rely on the terms of the web advertisement. It may be impractical and unjust to demand that the mistaken party actually prove the knowledge of a substantial number of people who effect numerous purchases. I hope by the time you see this email, the price is still at S$66.00 coz they might change it anytime. Pages 74 Ratings 100% (5) 5 out of 5 people found this document helpful; Leave was also given to the plaintiffs to adduce further evidence, if they so desired. 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. 6 On Wednesday, 8January 2003 between 3.00pm and 4.00pm, DILs employees conducted a training session at the defendants premises. 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 held that the contract between the parties was void. His communications with the fifth plaintiff, a lawyer, on the efficacy of the terms and conditions also lead to the ineluctable conclusion that he harboured anxieties whether this astoundingly good deal would be honoured when the error was discovered. The contract was held to be void because there was no consensus on the terms. The jurisdiction asserted in the former case has not developed. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594; [2004] SGHC 71. 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. It is therefore incumbent on the web merchant to protect himself, as he has both the means to do so and knowledge relating to the availability of any product that is being marketed. . In that sense, it is akin to ordinary posting. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com (2005) - Singaporean case 3d printers sold for $66 instead of $3,800. 30 Tan Wei Teck is 30 years old. How come got such thing? In effect the Internet conveniently integrates into a single screen traditional advertising, catalogues, shop displays/windows and physical shopping. Lord Phillips of Worth MatraversMR observed in a withering analysis at [156], [157], [160] and [161]: Thus the premise of the equitys intrusion into the effects of the common law is that the common law rule in question is seen in the particular case to work injustice, and for some reason the common law cannot cure itself. Caveat emptor remains a cornerstone of the law of contract and business relationships. The marrow of contractual relationships should be the parties intention to create a legal relationship. It is not necessary to prove actual knowledge on the part of the non-mistaken party in order to ground relief, as in this context one is taken to have known what would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the light of the surrounding circumstances: Hartog v Colin and Shields [1939] AllER 566 (KBD); McMaster University; Stepps Investments, supra; Taylor, supra. 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). He said that he wanted to be sure that the offer on the HP website was genuine. There were no such discussions with potential buyers. No modern authority was cited to me suggesting an intended commercial transaction of this nature could ever fail for want of consideration. She opined that situations where unilateral mistake had been considered were those involving fraud or a very high degree of misconduct. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:46 hahahaha yeah lor .. aiyah why u only buy 3????? In Canada, the latter suffices. He seemed to suggest that in a number of cases going as far back as Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3App Cas 459, the contracts in issue therein should be treated as only being voidable in equity: see Solle v Butcher at 692, Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 198 at 207 and dicta in Magee v Pennine Insurance Co Ltd [1969] 2 QB 507 at 514 where he opined that: A common mistake, even on a most fundamental matter, does not make a contract void at law: but it makes it voidable in equity. By their own admission, they made Internet searches through various search engines to ascertain the profits they could make. It would be fair to say that such a person should not have any legitimate expectation that the contract in question will be either respected or sanctioned by court. He acknowledged having had conversations with the other plaintiffs about how much money we can sell the printer and how much we can make and about storage space as well as how many units we intend to buy. It is axiomatic that normal contractual principles apply but the contractual permutations will obviously be sometimes more complex and spread over a greater magnitude of transactions. The common law has drawn the line in Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. [2005] 1 SLR(R) Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall Pte Ltd 521. whether constructive knowledge by a non-mistaken party of the mistake would suffice to vitiate the contract ab initio. Daniel was previously a partner and head of the technology practice at Messrs Rajah & Tann. They proceeded to file their amendments to the statement of claim as if leave had already been given. I do not know if this is an error or whether HP will honour this purchase. V K Rajah JC: Para continuar leyendo. 98 Once an offer is sent over the Internet, the sender loses control over the route and delivery time of the message. 92 The Electronics Transaction Act (Cap88, 1999Rev Ed) (ETA) places Internet contractual dealings on a firmer footing. A prospective purchaser is entitled to rely on the terms of the web advertisement. 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. In short, where does the justice reside? He claimed that he had not asked her to do the research and that she had done it independently. 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 was aware that the laser printers were targeted for business use. 61 The fifth plaintiff placed an order for 100 laser printers at about 3.51am. I found his entire evidence relating to his communication with the first and other plaintiffs unsatisfactory and in many aspects incredulous. On the issue of his actual knowledge and communications with the other plaintiffs at the material time, I found his evidence unsatisfactory. The later the amendment, the greater the adverse consequences. hahaha means S$132, Desmond 13/01/20 01:43 even $500 is a steal. From time to time there will be cases where this is an overriding consideration. 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. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:33 how many u intend to get? - Rebutting presumption: "The question [whether or not there is a binding contract] must depend on the 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 . He worked for a short period in the IT Project Development department of the Standard Chartered Bank, where he became acquainted with the first plaintiff. 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. In the recent case of Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd (2005), the Singapore Courts were provided with an opportunity to revisit the law concerning mistakes made in the formation of a contract, in particular, in the context of online contracts. 122 For now it appears that a mistaken party can have two bites at the cherry. Not all one-sided transactions or bargains are improper. 97 Different rules may apply to e-mail transactions and worldwide web transactions. They are all well-educated professionals articulate, entrepreneurial and, quite bluntly, streetwise and savvy individuals. The issue in this case was whether the pricing was a mistake and if the contract would be fulfilled. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:24 just ordered 3 colour lazer printer for S$66.00 each. June 16, 2022; Posted by why do chavs wear tracksuits; 16 . June Proctor, 1997, p. 13. The plaintiffs also assert in their submissions that if contracts are only upheld if parties acted honourably there would be very few contracts left standing in the commercial world. After the defendant intimated that it would not be delivering the laser printer, he sent an e-mail excoriating it, asserting, inter alia: Myself, and other people who have been disappointed by you decision, will definitely spread word of the companys lack of honour and integrity to everyone we know and all over the internet! This is an online dating and match-making service. 83 The defendant maintained that there was no element of surprise and/or prejudice arising from the amendments. After receiving the e-mail from the first plaintiff, he visited the relevant HP website pages. 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. be rebutted" (per Salmon LJ in Jones v. Padavatton (1969)). 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. Document Citado por Relacionados. 47 Not content with making his own purchases, he woke up his brother and transacted 330 units on his behalf. 118 The Canadian courts have been the most active common law courts explicating and developing this area of the law. 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. He placed his first order for 50 units at about 2.58am, and his second order for another 50 units at 3.22am, again through the HP website. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall Pte Ltd The defendant, Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, were an online IT company that sold related software and hardware from Singapore. Ltd.1 has the makings of a student's classic for several reasons: it presents a textbook . 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.)]. There are many different shades of sharp practice or impropriety. 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. Unlike instances of fraud, where it is said fraud unravels the existing contract, in instances of unilateral mistake, the very existence of the contract is negatived there is no consensus. Doctrines and Institutions of Responsible Government. 49 Tan Cheng Pengs brief evidence did not really assist the third plaintiff. Because it was simply a matter of time before the error would inevitably be noticed and the pricing inevitably corrected. COOKE v OXLEY (1790) 3 T. R. 653. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:42 I want at least one for personal use 2 would be good coz my gf needs one too any more than that would be a bonus ;-), Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:43 anyway, I dont mind buying over if you have frens who want to sell buy at twice the price!! The plaintiffs and the defendant later reached an agreement to dispense with any further oral evidence, save for that of Tan Cheng Peng. Altogether he sought to purchase 760 units, the largest number of orders placed by anyone between 8 and 13January 2003. 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. Case name. This could account for the substantial number of Canadian cases in this area of the law. There is constant tension in our legal system to accommodate the Janus-like considerations of fairness and finality. In terms of chronological sequence, the initial page accessed was the shopping cart, followed by checkout-order . Interestingly, Desmond also remarked to the first plaintiff that he wasnt greedy before I tok to u. Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502; [2005] SGCA 2. A contract will not be concluded unless the parties are agreed as to its material terms. The goods are not on offer but are said to be an invitation to treat. Section11 of the ETA expressly provides that offers and acceptances may be made electronically. reference was made by the court to "fraud or a very high degree of misconduct" before the non- mistaken party could be . If coherence is to be restored to this area of our law, it can only be by declaring that there is no jurisdiction to grant rescission of a contract on the ground of common mistake where that contract is valid and enforceable on ordinary principles of contract law. Voces del tesauro. The payment mode opted for was cash on delivery. 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?? What is urged is that, owing to a common error as to some fundamental fact, the agreement is robbed of all efficacy. CHWEE KIN KEONG v DIGILANDMALL.COM Pte Ltd (2005) SGCA 2. To that extent, his evidence that he subsequently dismissed the notion altogether is unacceptable. 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. 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. This can be supported by the decision of the High Court of Singapore in the case of Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, in which Judicial Commissioner Rajah argued that "the party who selects the means of communication should bear the consequences of any unexpected events" . But it is difficult to see how that can apply here. Transactions over websites are almost invariably instantaneous and/or interactive.
Travis Scott House Address Texas,
Bannerlord Best Weapons To Smith,
Tecumseh High School Football,
Articles C
