In Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR (R) 594 (" Digilandmall.com "), the plaintiffs concerned placed orders over the Internet for a total of 1,606 Hewlett Packard commercial laser printers on the defendant (seller's) websites. 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. 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. This, in a nutshell, is the issue at the heart of these proceedings. This has clearly caused much confusion in the common law jurisdictions. He subsequently sent the web link to the Epinions website to the first and second plaintiffs. 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 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. Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp. [1955] 2 Q.B. Given his professional and business background, he must have realised that the $66 price posting on the HP website was an error. The credit card payments had not been processed. Suggested Citation: Seng, Daniel Kiat Boon, Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd: A Commentary (June 2020). The defendants argued this pricing was a unilateral mistake and that the complainants took advantage of this. June 16, 2022; Posted by why do chavs wear tracksuits; 16 . Introduction The decision of V.K. 117 It should be emphasised that this stream of authority is consistently recognised by all the major common law jurisdictions. In doing so, they appear to have also conflated equitable and common law concepts. 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. In terms of chronological sequence, the initial page accessed was the shopping cart, followed by checkout-order . In the Singapore context a similar approach has been adopted by the Court of Appeal in, 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. Sometimes this is made explicit by judges; more often it is the implied basis of the courts decision. In the eyes of Singapore law, purported contracts entered into in similar circumstances are void ab initio. In its pleaded case, the defendant asserts that the automated e-mail responses it sent out in the early hours of 13January 2003 did not confirm that stock of the laser printers were available and would be delivered. 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. 3. Thus, 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. The rules of offer and acceptance are satisfied and the parties are of one mind. Their 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. The plaintiffs refute that the error exonerates the defendant; they insist that a concluded contract is sacrosanct and must be honoured. 60 Prior to placing his order, he was again contacted by the second plaintiff. Secondly, widening the scope of mistake, unilateral or otherwise, under the rubric of equitable mistake will, with its malleability, only encourage uncertainty and litigation. 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. In short, where does the justice reside? In that sense, it is akin to ordinary posting. This gives their courts a broad and elastic jurisdiction to deal with commercially inappropriate behaviour. 64 The fifth plaintiff was vague and tentative in many crucial aspects of his evidence. The decision ofV.K. I am not prepared, after full consideration, to assume that the reporters misquoted the facts. In Chwee Kin Keong v . Some of the plaintiffs appeared rather coy or ignorant in this regard but I did not find their performance believable. ThompsonJ of the Ontario High Court applied Hartog v Colin & Shields ([115] supra) and held that the parties were not ad idem and found that no contract had been formed. 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!! Therefore, administrative law encompasses Is the Right to Privacy Adequately Protected? Contract doctrine is substantially predicated upon achieving an ethical equilibrium between the individualistic ethic and community ethic in order to protect reasonable or legitimate expectations. in the High Court decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd,2 from the perspective of economics. 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. The contract was held to be void because there was no consensus on the terms. The defendant even had its terms and conditions posted on its website. While I agree with what Madam Justice Mclachlin said so far as it goes, I do not believe she intended to imply that there must be a conscious taking advantage by one party of the other in all cases. In the light of that consideration we can see no way that Solle v Butcher can stand with Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. The quintessential approach of the law is to preserve rather than to undermine contracts. 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. I would not however invariably equate the required conduct with fraud. 94 Historically, the common law has recognised an anomaly in the contractual features pertaining to a display of goods for sale. On the issue of his actual knowledge and communications with the other plaintiffs at the material time, I found his evidence unsatisfactory. It was held that the contract between the parties was void. 53 He claimed that seeing the same price on the Digilandmall website confirmed his view that there had been no mistake. However, not all principles will or can apply in the same manner that they apply to traditional paper-based and oral contracts. 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. The defendant, on the other hand, contends that the law should not penalise a party who has unwittingly and genuinely made a unilateral mistake which was known or ought to have been known by the plaintiffs. The CISG has currently been adopted by 95 Contracting States world-wide. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR(R) 594, Rajah JC (as . 30th Sep 2021 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. Though he initially denied this in cross-examination, he had to accept this when confronted with his own e-mail as irrefutable evidence. Basic principles of contract law continue to prevail in contracts made on the Internet. Websites often provide a service where online purchases may be made. 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. Vincent. Indeed, I am satisfied to the contrary. It is postulated by many of the leading treatises that equity has a broad church incorporating a more elastic approach and a court of equity may rescind a contract, award damages or, in limited circumstances, fashion a remedy, to suit the justice of the matter. 9 The defendants assertion that Samuel Teo had neither the authority nor the intention to make any alterations to the laser printers price is now accepted by the plaintiffs. Altogether, the second plaintiff purchased 180 units, opting for cash on delivery as the payment mode. 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. [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. 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. This gives their courts a broad and elastic jurisdiction to deal with commercially inappropriate behaviour. Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594; [2004] SGHC 71 Suit No: Suit 202/2003/E Decision Date: 12 Apr 2004 Court: High Court Coram: V K Rajah JC Counsel: Tan Sok Ling, Malcolm Tan and Mohan Das Vijayaratnam (Tan S L and Partners) for plaintiffs, Philip Fong Yeng Fatt and Doris Chia Ming Lai (Harry Elias It can be persuasively argued that e-mails involving transactions embraced by the Convention are only effective on reaching the recipient. 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. Unilateral Mistake at . In addition, Tan Cheng Peng, the girlfriend and business associate of the third plaintiff, filed an affidavit detailing her communications with him. Chwee Kin Keong vs Digilandmall.com After hearing their evidence, observing them and considering the submissions made on their behalf, there was no doubt in my mind that they were fully conscious that an unfortunate and egregious mistake had indeed been made by the defendant. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. 131 In a number of cases, including the present, it may not really matter which view is preferred. 13 The first plaintiff, Chwee Kin Keong, is 29 years old. In Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, 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. 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. 37 The second plaintiff was insistent in his evidence that there was no communication from the first plaintiff alerting him to the likely existence of the mistake; he contends the first plaintiff merely apprised him of a good deal and sent him the weblink to the HP website. As the Channel NewsAsia report so succinctly summarised they saw a great opportunity and grabbed it. It appears to suggest that even if an offer is snapped up, the contract is not void. The businessmen saw a great opportunity and grabbed it placing an order for 1,000 printers. Samuel Teo had used all these notional numerals on the training template. Be that as it may, the fifth plaintiff, soon after he received MsTohs research, shared the information with the second and third plaintiffs. 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. 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. Added to his own purchases of 760 units, he was effectively responsible for the purchase of 1,090 laser printers. 27-30 January; 2-6, 9 February; 13 March; 12 April 2004 . In support of the latter it might be argued that unlike a posting, e-mail communication takes place in a relatively short time frame. Slade, in a well reasoned article written not long after, 128 The most significant judicial pronouncement supporting this view emanates from the recent English Court of Appeal in, 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. Because it was simply a matter of time before the error would inevitably be noticed and the pricing inevitably corrected. 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. 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 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. 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" . That said, it also offers new avenues of evidential proof offering intimate insights into realtime thought processes and reactions. It is significant that some of the plaintiffs had never made any prior Internet purchases before that eventful morning. Market orders: order to be executed immediately at the best available price. 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. The individualistic ethic seeks to maximise individual goals and the community ethic seeks to set norms for commercial morality and to ensure that fair dealing and community cohesiveness are observed and maintained. Keywords Contract Online Store Mistake Pricing Mistake Citation 38 The second plaintiff came across as intelligent and resourceful. 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. 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. To confine this exception to instances of fraud would make the concept of unilateral mistake redundant. 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 preface I do not know in no way detracts from this; the e-mail being addressed to a large group of 54 persons, the first plaintiff would simply not have wanted to commit himself by saying I know. There are many different shades of sharp practice or impropriety. 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. See now, also, High Court and Court of Appeal, recently, in a number of case . The decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in, 25 The law of mistake was discussed in depth by McLachlinCJBC in. 120 The widening of jurisdiction to embrace a broad equitable jurisdiction could well encourage litigious behaviour and promote uncertainty. Desmond intimated that the defendant would give vouchers or special deals as a matter of equitable compensation should it not honour the purchase orders. The first plaintiffs purchase took place soon after the ICQ conversation with Desmond where Desmond had in no uncertain terms pitched the price of the laser printer between $3,000 to $4,000. It does not purport to regulate e-commerce but attempts to facilitate the usage of e-commerce by equating the position of electronic records with that of written records, thus elevating the status of electronic signatures to that of legal signatures. There was also no indication that the product was being sold on promotion. Added to his own purchases of 760 units, he was effectively responsible for the purchase of 1,090 laser printers. Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502; [2005] SGCA 2. It can be noted, however, that while s15 of the ETA appears to be inclined in favour of the receipt rule, commentaries indicate that it is not intended to affect substantive law. He worked in an accounting firm, Ernst and Young, for three years. To that extent, his evidence that he subsequently dismissed the notion altogether is unacceptable. 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. 36 The second plaintiff was the key person and pivotal in the entire chain of events. Leave was also given to the plaintiffs to adduce further evidence, if they so desired. The third plaintiff informed him that laser printers were being sold at $66 each and that these laser printers could be sold at a much higher price about a thousand plus. Date of Verdicts: 12 April 2004, 13 January 2005. 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. 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. If the common law continues to take precedence, then an essential mistake would void a contract ab initio. Prior to this he was an associate in the Intellectual Property and Technology Department of Allen & Gledhill. They assert that spending only $105,996 to procure laser printers with an actual market value of $6,189,524 is wholly irrelevant; they are entitled to a good bargain. He is also described as the sole proprietor and manager of two other businesses that provide business support and consultancy. As a lawyer, he appears to have been indispensable in the plaintiffs attempts to hold the defendant to the bargain. 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.
What Are Bob Stoops Sons Doing,
Give Demeter The Fruit Strange Journey,
Articles C