chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court

The reason for this inconsistent conduct surfaced later. 139 Next, the defendant contends that no consideration passed from the plaintiffs to them. 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. Others do not. In addition, each of the confirmatory e-mail responses states at the outset: [W]e will be calling you in the near future to deliver the products to the address shown below. This provision acknowledges that the essential framework of an electronic contract needs to be considered in the usual manner; in other words, principles of contract formation, consideration, terms and conditions, choice of law and jurisdictional issues need to be examined. He seemed to suggest that in a number of cases going as far back as, He somewhat muddied the authority of his observations by apparently accepting in, 126 The Australian courts appear to have relied on the views of Lord DenningMR in, 127 The attempt to conflate the concept of common law mistake and the equitable jurisdiction over mistake is understandable but highly controversial. 40 When the fourth plaintiff responded to the first plaintiffs mass e-mail, he copied his response to the second plaintiff. The essence of unilateral mistake is the knowledge or deemed knowledge of a mistake and though fraud may often be present it is not an essential ingredient. 30 Tan Wei Teck is 30 years old. 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. Nor should parties regard pleadings as assuming an amoeba-like nature, susceptible to constant reshaping. Because it was simply a matter of time before the error would inevitably be noticed and the pricing inevitably corrected. 146 A purchaser in a case of apparent unilateral mistake, who purchases for genuine own use a product, may not always be viewed as guilty of engaging in snapping up. 36 The second plaintiff was the key person and pivotal in the entire chain of events. Transactions over websites are almost invariably instantaneous and/or interactive. A contract is normally concluded when an offer made by one party (the offeror) is accepted by the party to whom the offer has been made (the offeree). They want Digiland to honour the deal or at least to compensate them. 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. Voces del tesauro. The programme trigger on that website automatically and instantaneously initiated the insertion of similar contents onto all three websites. The bites, however, may taste quite different and cause different sensations. The defendant is therefore entitled to recover in full its taxed costs from the plaintiffs. Merchants may find their contracts formed in foreign jurisdictions and therefore subject to foreign laws. This rationalised the law and gives the court a broad discretion to fashion the applicable relief. So its going to be our reputation at stake, we thought we had a successful transaction.. 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. Rules of court which are meant to facilitate the conduct of proceedings invariably encapsulate concepts of procedural fairplay. Clout issue 43. 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. Having noted all this, I am nevertheless inclined towards the views expressed in the, 131 In a number of cases, including the present, it may not really matter which view is preferred. Cases of fraud and misrepresentation, and undue influence, are all catered for under other existing and uncontentious equitable rules. He claimed that he had not asked her to do the research and that she had done it independently. 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. Whether the parties have reached agreement on the terms is not determined by evidence of the subjective intention of each party. The plaintiffs orders were processed by the defendants automated system and confirmation notes were automatically despatched to the plaintiffs within a few minutes. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. The Postal Acceptance Rule in the Digital Age - ResearchGate Tiong Min Yeo - SSRN [2005] SGCA 2 - eLitigation He is currently employed as an accountant in an accounting firm, Ernst & Young. 96 In an Internet sale, a prospective purchaser is not able to view the physical stock available. Case Summary Unilateral mistake in contracts - L'Avocat Law It seems to me that he was trying to tailor his evidence to fit neatly within the legal parameters of the plaintiffs case. Acceptance sent through email; is the postal rule applicable? Nor could he satisfactorily explain why he initially made the Internet searches to ensure the offer was genuine. It is set in the context of internet contracting. COURT. This cannot be right. 8 The proper description of the laser printer, HPC9660A Color LaserJet 4600, was, as a result of the accident, replaced by the numerals 55; while the numerals 66 replaced the correct price of the laser printer priced at $3,854 and the numerals 77 replaced the original corporate price of the laser printer priced at $3,448. 85 Having stated the general rule, it is imperative that the rationale underlying this approach be understood. These orders were placed at a price of S$66 each, whereas the actual price was S$3,854 each. reference was made by the court to "fraud or a very high degree of misconduct" before the non- mistaken party could be . He offered to buy a laser printer from Desmond at double the price, that is $132. He is described by his counsel in submissions as a prudent and careful person. 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 stands to reason that if a party shuts its eyes to the obvious, the party is being neither honest nor reasonable, and ought to be affixed with knowledge. From time to time there will be cases where this is an overriding consideration. 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. 43 After receiving a call from the first plaintiff at about 2.00am informing him that he had found an opportunity to make money as there was an arbitrage position to be achieved for some Hewlett Packard printers, the third plaintiff duly accessed his e-mail and visited the HP website. 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. The Question about Validity of Postal Rule - lawteacher.net It is significant that some of the plaintiffs had never made any prior Internet purchases before that eventful morning. In a Straits Times report dated 15January 2003 captioned $66 printer error angry customers seek lawyers help, it was reported that the second plaintiff, described as a network marketer had on 13January at about 2.00am stumbled upon a offer he could not believe $66 for a Hewlett Packard laserjet printer that normally sells for $3,854 before GST. 72 To effect the purchase transactions on the respective websites, the plaintiffs had to navigate through several web pages. While these contentions were well within the scope of the evidence adduced and their respective lines of cross-examination, they appeared to transgress their respective pleadings. If stock of a product has been exhausted, a prospective purchaser cannot sue for specific performance or damages as he has merely made an offer that has not been accepted by the merchant. That said, it also offers new avenues of evidential proof offering intimate insights into realtime thought processes and reactions. The neutral citation of the case Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd is as follows: This citation tells us that this was the 71st case in 2004 decided in the Singapore High Court. Although a mistaken party will not often be able to discharge the onus of showing that the other party knew or must have known that he or she intended terms different from the terms of the offer or acceptance, it is not a necessary element that the party seeking to enforce the contract has actively contributed to the others mistake. 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. The court found that parties when . The High Court of Australia in Taylor v Johnson purportedly relied on Solle v Butcher, Bell v Lever Brothers, Limited [1932] AC 161, McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84CLR 377, all cases of common mistake, to suggest that in unilateral mistake a contracting party cannot assert, by relying on his own mistake, that a contract is void, notwithstanding the issue is fundamental or known to the other side. They are not mechanical rules to be applied in a vacuum, devoid of a contextual setting. 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. Here are some examples of case citations for other jurisdictions. The sender will usually receive a prompt response. Placing an advertisement on the Internet is essentially advertising or holding out to the world at large. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:33 as many as I can! The e-mails had all the characteristics of an unequivocal acceptance. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:25 ok but how come got such a good deal? The plaintiffs and the defendant later reached an agreement to dispense with any further oral evidence, save for that of Tan Cheng Peng. 26 I respectfully agree with the reasoning of ShawJ in Can-Dive Services Ltd v Pacific Coast Energy Corp (1995), 21CLR(2d) 39 (BCSC), where he said at 69-70 that: 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. Singapore Court of Appeal. 41 The second plaintiff seems to have redefined the facts to achieve his objective in these proceedings. The decision of V.K. The defendant even had its terms and conditions posted on its website. 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. This can be before or during the trial, or after judgment or on appeal. He is 32 years old and conducts his own network marketing business. 120 The widening of jurisdiction to embrace a broad equitable jurisdiction could well encourage litigious behaviour and promote uncertainty. . Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com (2005) - Singaporean case 3d printers sold for $66 instead of $3,800. CHWEE KIN KEONG and Others v DIGILANDMALL.COM Pte Ltd (2004) 2 SLR 594. 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. There are in this connection two schools of thought. Ltd. Yeo Tiong Min* I. 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 . 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. The evidence incontrovertibly indicates that the first plaintiff himself entertained this view for the entire period he was in communication with the second and third plaintiffs. The quintessential approach of the law is to preserve rather than to undermine contracts. 92 The Electronics Transaction Act (Cap88, 1999Rev Ed) (ETA) places Internet contractual dealings on a firmer footing.

How Often Should I Use Pureplex Hair Repair System, 10 Barrel Brewing Blood Orange Vodka Soda Calories, Articles C