This is clearly a mistake as they could not possible be sold for an amount that in a commercial situation. Consideration was less than executory and non-existent. 96 In an Internet sale, a prospective purchaser is not able to view the physical stock available. 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. The businessmen saw a great opportunity and grabbed it placing an order for 1,000 printers. An e-mail, while bearing some similarity to a postal communication, is in some aspects fundamentally different. Someone referred me to the HP website which shows the price of this HP Colour LaserJet 4600 Series as S$66.00. Their reference to arbitraging was a nebulous fig leaf designed to legitimise their conduct in a cloak of legal and commercial respectability. Indeed this appears to be the underlying rationale for the unique legal characteristics attributed to an invitation to treat; see. The rationale for this is that a court will not sanction a contract where there is no consensus ad idem and furthermore it will not allow, as in the case of unilateral mistake, a non-mistaken party to take advantage of an error which he is or ought to be conscious of. 69 The sixth plaintiff was awakened by his brother, the third plaintiff, at about 3.00am. There is no merit at all in this contention. The unusual product description of 55 which the fourth plaintiff alone reluctantly acknowledged as weird and unusual would have been a red light signal that an error had occurred. six plaintiffs ordered 1,606 printers. 53 He claimed that seeing the same price on the Digilandmall website confirmed his view that there had been no mistake. It is asserted that since mistake had not been pleaded as an equitable defence, equity cannot be invoked by the defendant. In his initial affidavit he admitted wondering whether the price was a mistake after his first order was placed. Abstract. 151 The claims by the plaintiffs are audacious, opportunistic and contrived. 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. Prejudice is to be viewed broadly to encompass any injustice and embraces both procedural and substantive notions; (d) recognising that while a costs award against the party seeking late amendments can frequently alleviate any inconvenience caused, this may not always be appropriate; (e) taking into account policy considerations that require finality in proceedings and proper time management of the courts resources and scheduling. The decision of V.K. [emphasis added]. It had consciously not inserted any limits to the number of products a buyer could purchase again, quite clearly, to solicit more business. Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, Whether amendment of particulars of pleadings at conclusion of submissions allowed, Facts raised in proposed amendments addressed during trial and submissions, Whether promise by buyer to pay for goods, in exchange for delivery of goods, constituted sufficient consideration, Electronic Transactions Act (Cap 88, 1999 Rev Ed), Whether automated e-mail responses from seller amounted to acceptance of buyer's offer, Seller's unilateral mistake as to price of goods posted on website, Whether online buyer entitled to enforce contract against seller, 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. Neither party raised any objections. 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. It was listed at the price of $66, when it was advertised on the official HP website for $3,854. 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. 101 The applicable rules in relation to transactions over the worldwide web appear to be clearer and less controversial. In Chwee Kin Keong v . After placing his second order, he admitted making further searches on the Internet to fortify my view that the price of the $66 per printer was not a mistake He was also the only plaintiff who placed an order on the Digilandmall website. Further, the character of the mistake was such that any reasonable person similarly circumstanced as each of the plaintiffs would have had every reason to believe that a manifest error had occurred. Reference this Case law chwee kin keong v digilandmallcom pte ltd. School Nanyang Technological University; Course Title ACC 1301; Uploaded By saint_huimin. 44 He made his first purchase of ten laser printers at about 2.42am. Having ascertained that the laser printer was being advertised at $66, he decided to undertake further online searches through Yahoo.com and Ebay.com. Nor could he satisfactorily explain why he initially made the Internet searches to ensure the offer was genuine. 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!! Often the essence of good business is the use of superior knowledge. This price was much lower than the actual retail price, and had been posted on the defendant's website by mistake. The fact that it may have been negligent is not a relevant factor in these proceedings. Be that as it may, the fifth plaintiff, soon after he received MsTohs research, shared the information with the second and third plaintiffs. 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.. From time to time they communicate with each other via the Internet and the short messaging system (sms). 95 The known availability of stock could be an important distinguishing factor between a physical sale and an Internet transaction. There are persuasive arguments against extending the litmus test of unconscionability to all mistake-type situations. 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. The plaintiffs and the defendant later reached an agreement to dispense with any further oral evidence, save for that of Tan Cheng Peng. It is, in large measure, determined by making an objective appraisal of the exchanges between the parties. Their conduct in pursuing their claims cannot by any stretch of the imagination be characterised as having the slightest colour of being legitimate regardless of whether the subjective or objective theories are applied and whether common law or equity is applied in adjudicating this matter. In the context of its true market value the absurd price of $66 was almost the commercial equivalent of virtually giving away the laser printers. 63 It is pertinent he too made web searches using the Google search engine. 86 In cases where the facts raised in the proposed amendments have been addressed during the evidence and submissions and, particularly, where the opposing side has also had an opportunity to address the very same points, there can hardly ever be any real prejudice. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. He is also part of the Bel-Air network. 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. The E-Mail Acceptance Rule. I have found that the plaintiffs had at all material times knowledge of or, at the very least, a real belief that an error had been made by the defendant in the price posting. 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. 13 The first plaintiff, Chwee Kin Keong, is 29 years old. He sought to amend his affidavit and testified that if the references in his affidavit implied the acknowledgement of a mistake, they were formulated not by him but by his previous solicitors and were incorrect. 98 Once an offer is sent over the Internet, the sender loses control over the route and delivery time of the message. 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.)]. One is hard put to imagine that anyone would purchase such an item, let alone place very substantial orders, without making some very basic enquiries as to pricing. In doing so, they appear to have also conflated equitable and common law concepts. But it is difficult to see how that can apply here. They were selling a HP laser printer and an employee accidently made a mistake as to the price of the printer on their website.. Cases Certain Internet service providers provide the technology to inform a sender that a message has not been properly routed. In New Zealand, the legislature enacted the Contractual Mistake Act 1977. If the offeree knows that the offeror does not intend the terms of the offer to be those that the natural meaning of the words would suggest, he cannot, by purporting to accept the offer, bind the offeror to a contract: Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3All ER 566; Smith v Hughes (1871) LR6 QB 597. Arrival can also be immaterial unless a recipient accesses the e-mail, but in this respect e-mail does not really differ from mail that has to be opened. They want Digiland to honour the deal or at least to compensate them. 4, 1971, p. 331. The first, second and third plaintiffs have been friends for a long time and are bound by common business interests. Singapore Court of Appeal. 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. Certainly, none of them had ever been induced to conduct transactions on such a scale on the Internet for any product, let alone sophisticated commercial laser printers. E-mails are processed through servers, routers and Internet service providers. His credibility on the material points was dubious, at best. 107 As the law now stands, mistakes that are not fundamental or which do not relate to an essential term do not vitiate consent. 18 He said he later conducted some searches using the Google search engine and ascertained that the laser printer could be sold at about US$1,300 in certain markets. The first plaintiff introduced him to the other plaintiffs. There can be no other reasonable explanation. Singapore Court of Appeal. [emphasis added]. There is no question, however, that he placed the orders, that these orders were received by the HP website and that the same automated response sent to the other plaintiffs was sent out to him. He too affirmed from his searches that the normal price of the laser printer was in the region of US$2,000. 132 It can be seen from this brief excursus into the law of mistake that this is an abstruse area. A prospective purchaser is entitled to rely on the terms of the web advertisement. In the Singapore context a similar approach has been adopted by the Court of Appeal in Aircharter World Pte Ltd v Kontena Nasional Bhd [1999] 3 SLR 1 at [30] and [31], and Projection Pte Ltd v The Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd [2001] 2 SLR 399 at [15]. This was also the practice in the trade. 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. . If there appears to be no reasonable explanation for an absurd price discrepancy, it is axiomatic that any hasty conduct, such as the plaintiffs, in snapping up products, should be punctiliously scrutinised and dissected. 36 The second plaintiff was the key person and pivotal in the entire chain of events. As a lawyer, he appears to have been indispensable in the plaintiffs attempts to hold the defendant to the bargain. 54 The fourth plaintiff admits that he had entertained the idea at the material time that the price posting could have been an error. It appears that it wanted to leave no stone unturned and had therefore mounted a root and branch attack on the plaintiffs claims. CHWEE KIN KEONG and Others v DIGILANDMALL.COM Pte Ltd (2004) 2 SLR 594. LOW, Kelvin Fatt Kin. The text of the e-mail further reinforces the point. Some of the plaintiffs appeared rather coy or ignorant in this regard but I did not find their performance believable. 137 Furthermore, from the evidence adduced, it became clear that the defendant had intentionally put the words call to enquire instead of, say, the phrase subject to stock availability in an attempt to entice would-be purchasers to place orders with them. Plaintiffs counsel indicated that they wanted to further particularise the sixth plaintiffs purchase orders. As part of its business, it operates a website owned by Hewlett Packard (HP) at http://www.buyhp.com.sg (the HP website) where only HP products are sold. In evidence he explained his conduct in the following manner: I felt that I had done all that was conceivably within my means to ensure that the Price was not a mistake. . Whether the parties have reached agreement on the terms is not determined by evidence of the subjective intention of each party. 82 The plaintiffs strenuously opposed the defendants amendments principally on the ground it was made at a late juncture. Quoine was operating as a market-maker on their own platform. In this case, there was no consensus ad idem or meeting of the minds between the parties, which meant that there could be no binding contract between them. The case of Chwee Kin Keong & Ors v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 71, and the decision by VK Rajah JC, has received much public attention. 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. 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. The essence is not so much in the nature of the amendment but rather in the consequences flowing from any amendment to the pleadings. 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. 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. 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 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.
How Did Tomyris Die, Why Did Mary Ann Leave Hell's Kitchen, How Do I Access My Master Strawman Account, How Much Did Rick Macci Make From Williams Sisters, Articles C