Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:40 if any friend got extra printer u want? Unfortunately, they mistakenly offered the price at so much per pound in place of so much per piece. Rather, in my opinion, constructive knowledge alone will suffice to invoke equitys conscience. The law will have to organically adapt itself to respond to new challenges without compromising on certainty and fairness. 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. In such cases, it would be unconscionable to enforce the bargain and equity will set aside the contract. 27 The first plaintiff obviously took the view that the advertisement should be acted upon urgently. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:47 u make me greedy, Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:47 ok lor if you insist . The decision ofV.K. 59 Upon duly accessing the HP website through the hyperlink sent to him by the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff ascertained that the laser printer was priced at $66. 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. This is in contrast to the English position where after several decades Hartog v Colin & Shields still remains the locus classicus. 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. Unilateral mistake in contracts - L'Avocat Law 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. Judgments >> CA The payment mode opted for was cash on delivery. Date of Verdicts: 12 April 2004, 13 January 2005. [The Myth of Mistake in the English Law of Contract (1954) 70LQR 385 at 396]. I am not prepared, after full consideration, to assume that the reporters misquoted the facts. 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?? It should be noted that while the common law jurisdictions continue to wrestle over this vexed issue, most civil law jurisdictions lean towards the recipient rule. 121 While my views here are not central to my decision, the plaintiffs have adverted to this relationship in a misguided attempt to derail the defence on an arid pleading technicality. 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. Examples of such mistakes would include (a)human error (b)programming of software errors and (c)transmission problems in the communication systems. In a physical sale, the merchant can immediately turn down an offer to purchase a product that has been advertised; otherwise he may be inundated with offers he cannot justify. Someone referred me to the HP website which shows the price of this HP Colour LaserJet 4600 Series as S$66.00. Court reference 202 of 2003. The leading Canadian decision in this area is the case of, 120 The widening of jurisdiction to embrace a broad equitable jurisdiction could well encourage litigious behaviour and promote uncertainty. In addition, Tan Cheng Peng, the girlfriend and business associate of the third plaintiff, filed an affidavit detailing her communications with him. Homestead Assets Sdn Bhd v. Contramec . Despite their familial relationship, the legal relationship between the two of them was that of agent and principal. Chwee Kin K eong and others . This price was much lower than the actual retail price, and had been posted on the defendant's website by mistake. Singapore Law Blog This was not noticed by the company until over 4,000 printers were ordered. 95 The known availability of stock could be an important distinguishing factor between a physical sale and an Internet transaction. VKR a j a hJ C. 27-30 January; 2-6, 9 February; 13 March; 12 April 2004. 132 It can be seen from this brief excursus into the law of mistake that this is an abstruse area. 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. 64 The fifth plaintiff was vague and tentative in many crucial aspects of his evidence. 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. Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532 Omnium D'Enterprises v . 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. be rebutted" (per Salmon LJ in Jones v. Padavatton (1969)). Abstract. Claiming he was in a light-hearted kind of mood during his ICQ (acronym for I-Seek-You) conversation with Desmond, he insisted that this conversation should be taken neither seriously nor literally. [emphasis added]. The notation in the checkout-order confirmation further confirmed that the defendants concern was with the delivery time rather than with qualifying its obligation by reference to stock availability as a condition precedent. He was aware that the laser printers were targeted for business use. 114 For good measure, I should allude that the plaintiffs in their written submissions concede that in order to establish that mistake is operative at common law, the defendant has to show in this instant case that the plaintiffs each had actual or constructive knowledge of the mistaken pricing. As most web merchants have automated software responses, they need to ensure that such automated responses correctly reflect their intentions from an objective perspective. 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.)]. The phrase call to enquire, it is contended, was in effect a condition precedent. Here are some examples of case citations for other jurisdictions. 33 After his first order, the second plaintiff contacted the fourth and fifth plaintiffs informing them about the laser printers. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. We are, Our conclusion is that it is impossible to reconcile, In this case we have heard full argument, which has provided what we believe has been the first opportunity in this court for a full and mature consideration of the relation between, 129 The careful analysis of case law undertaken by that court yields a cogent and forceful argument that Lord DenningMR was plainly attempting to side-step, 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. Doctrines and Institutions of Responsible Government. Because it was simply a matter of time before the error would inevitably be noticed and the pricing inevitably corrected. 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. To that extent, his evidence that he subsequently dismissed the notion altogether is unacceptable. Civil Procedure Pleadings . There is however much to be said in favour of rationalising the law of mistake under a single doctrine incorporating the best elements of common law and equity. 39 The sequence of orders placed by the second plaintiff in the short space of an hour and a half deserves some mention. 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. 100 There is however another statute that ought to be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate default rule in e-commerce transactions. . Similar works. The e-mails sent at 2.34am were also captioned Go load it now! As this is a critical issue, it is imperative that each of their positions be carefully evaluated. This could account for the substantial number of Canadian cases in this area of the law. She opined that situations where unilateral mistake had been considered were those involving fraud or a very high degree of misconduct. Different protocols may result in messages arriving in an incomprehensible form. Placing an advertisement on the Internet is essentially advertising or holding out to the world at large. The defendant is therefore entitled to recover in full its taxed costs from the plaintiffs. PDF Contract Formation and Mistake in Cyberspace - the Singapore Experience 135 The defendant however asserts that there were no concluded contracts with any of the plaintiffs on a number of grounds. While the first plaintiff was the source of the information concerning the price posting, the second plaintiff actively communicated with all of the plaintiffs (save the sixth plaintiff), throughout the material period. NZULR, vol. After all, what would he do with 100 obsolete commercial laser printers? 56 He vacillated throughout his evidence between a propensity to embellish his evidence on the one hand and to hold back on the other. 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 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. "Unilateral Mistake at Common Law and in Equity" by Kelvin Fatt Kin LOW Often the essence of good business is the use of superior knowledge. 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. The court has to be astute and adopt a pragmatic and judicious stance in resolving such issues. The prospective buyer has to make an offer to purchase which is then accepted by the merchant. They assumed that to be the position. But it is difficult to see how that can apply here. 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. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:25 ok but how come got such a good deal? 101 RSS Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Expand/Collapse. Contract Formation and Mistake in Cyberspace - the Singapore Experience Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. He holds an accounting degree from NTU. June 16, 2022; Posted by why do chavs wear tracksuits; 16 . Nor is it disputed that Samuel Teo, or any of the other employees of the defendant, was unaware at all material times of the dramatic chain of events so unwittingly initiated by the former. Taking into account the nature of the claims, the conduct of these proceedings by the plaintiffs and how the case for the plaintiffs unravelled, it would not, all things considered, be appropriate to interfere with the normal order of costs which ought to follow the result. 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. Soon after, the second, third and fifth plaintiffs took their claims to the media. There are two types of orders relevant: market orders and limit orders. The object of the exercise is to determine what each party intended, or must be deemed to have intended. I note that Chitty at para5-089, fn25 sagely opines that Taylor v Johnson does not represent English law, at least, where the other party knows that a mistake has been made. However, if the defendant did not have stock, it would immediately call the supplier and procure the products for the end-user. In terms of chronological sequence, the initial page accessed was the shopping cart, followed by checkout-order . 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. 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. 55 The fourth plaintiff is technologically savvy and runs an Internet business with the second plaintiff. 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 submissions, his counsel attempted to play down the significance of both this conversation as well as the mass e-mail. They were clearly anxious to place their orders before the defendant took steps to correct the error. 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. 40 When the fourth plaintiff responded to the first plaintiffs mass e-mail, he copied his response to the second plaintiff. 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. 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 vs Digilandmall.com - Free download as Powerpoint Presentation (.ppt / .pptx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or view presentation slides online. The complainants argued that they were not aware that this price was a mistake and wanted the binding contract to be fulfilled. 73 The sixth plaintiffs orders did not receive matching confirmations from the defendant as his e-mail box was full. Yet in other aspects, he could recollect, with crystal clear precision and clarity, details of what had transpired. It appears there were a series of sms messages between them and at least a few telephone discussions while the purchases were being effected. 92 The Electronics Transaction Act (Cap88, 1999Rev Ed) (ETA) places Internet contractual dealings on a firmer footing. He somewhat muddied the authority of his observations by apparently accepting in Gallie v Lee [1969] 2 Ch 17 at 33 (affirmed on appeal in Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1971] AC 1004) that in Cundy v Lindsay there was no contract at all. The fact that the acceptance was automatically generated by a computer software cannot in any manner exonerate the defendant from responsibility. Why? 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.