96 In an Internet sale, a prospective purchaser is not able to view the physical stock available. 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. 78 In a Channel NewsAsia report datelined 15January 2003, it was reported that: Two of the customers, Mark Yeow and Malcolm Tan, have already spoken to their lawyers. 68 Yeow Kinn Oei is 29 years old and the brother of the third plaintiff. Upon accessing the Digilandmall website and confirming that the printer was offered there at $66 as well, he placed a further order for 25 laser printers through that website at about 3.29am. 76 On Monday, 13January 2003, at about 9.15am, an employee of the defendant received a call from a prospective customer inquiring whether the defendant was aware of the posted price of $66 for the laser printers on the HP website. It is not in dispute that the defendant made a genuine error. Abstract The decision of V.K. The rigour in limiting this scope is also critical to protect innocent third party rights that may have been acquired directly or indirectly. Indeed, I am satisfied to the contrary. *You can also browse our support articles here >. He graduated from NTU as a bachelor of business studies, specialising in financial analysis. 327. There cannot be any legitimate expectation of enforcement on the part of the non-mistaken party seeking to take advantage of appearances. As a lawyer, he appears to have been indispensable in the plaintiffs attempts to hold the defendant to the bargain. 140 The defendant has however properly asserted that there was a unilateral mistake that vitiated all the contracts. 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. 2 Who is correct? 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. 1.47K subscribers Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] Facts The defendant, Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, were an online IT company that sold related software and hardware from. 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. 124 A number of decisions over the last five decades emanating from several common law jurisdictions even go so far as to suggest that with the integration of the courts of common law and equity, equitable principles now hold sway and that earlier common law decisions need reinterpretation. The answer on the authorities is a mistake by one party of which the other knew or ought reasonably to have known. They are not mechanical rules to be applied in a vacuum, devoid of a contextual setting. 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. The plaintiffs assert they were not aware of the defendants mistake when they placed their orders, and had believed the offer was genuine. As part of its business, it operates a website owned by Hewlett Packard (HP) at, 16 When the first plaintiff eventually succeeded in accessing the HP website, he immediately placed an order for 100 laser printers at about, 17 Having called the second and third plaintiffs at about. He also participates in multi-level marketing of Bel-Air aromatherapy products. This, by an uncanny coincidence, was the same person whom he had intended to consult in the resale of the laser printers a topic that he had discussed with the second plaintiff earlier that morning. 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. This gives their courts a broad and elastic jurisdiction to deal with commercially inappropriate behaviour. Typical transactions are usually but not invariably characterised by (a)indecent alacrity; and (b)behaviour that any fair-minded commercial person similarly circumstanced would regard as a patent affront to commercial fairplay or morality. The sender will usually receive a prompt response. It was found that the plaintiffs must have known or realised that the offer did not express the true intention of the defendants. See now, also, In Canada, the latter suffices. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:47 u make me greedy, Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:47 ok lor if you insist . Here are some examples of case citations for other jurisdictions. The common law has drawn the line in Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. This new template was designed to facilitate instantaneous price changes allowing them to be simultaneously reflected in the relevant Internet web pages. Despite their familial relationship, the legal relationship between the two of them was that of agent and principal. Even if it were to be held that there is now a general test of unconscionability applicable to all types of mistake, the plaintiffs contentions will not take them far. 111 This approach appears to have been endorsed by Judith PrakashJ in Ho Seng Lee Construction Pte Ltd v Nian Chuan Construction Pte Ltd [2001] 4 SLR 407 at [84] where it was also accepted that: The test is an objective one based on what a reasonable person would have known in similar circumstances. Consideration was less than executory and non-existent. Examples of such mistakes would include (a)human error (b)programming of software errors and (c)transmission problems in the communication systems. 33 After his first order, the second plaintiff contacted the fourth and fifth plaintiffs informing them about the laser printers. Two issues had arisen. 35 In addition to these conversations, the second plaintiff also accessed the Epinions website and sent a related e-mail to the first plaintiff. 138 Effectively, the defendant was attempting in this contention to assert that it could have its cake and eat it as well. I categorically reject their evidence in so far as it attempts to hermetically compartmentalise their knowledge and discussions. To that extent, his evidence that he subsequently dismissed the notion altogether is unacceptable. 83 The defendant maintained that there was no element of surprise and/or prejudice arising from the amendments. 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. 125 The principal source of this view has been Lord DenningMR. . The following excerpts are particularly relevant: Desmond: 13/01/20 01:17 go hp online now. 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. 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, 27 The first plaintiff obviously took the view that the advertisement should be acted upon urgently. NZULR, vol. Counsels approach is flawed. The court held that the acceptance has been completed once it is posted although here, the defendants actually did not receive the letter before they sold it to someone else. The fact that the acceptance was automatically generated by a computer software cannot in any manner exonerate the defendant from responsibility. Though both of them admit to having had discussions about the website terms and conditions governing the purchases, they deny that there was any discussion between them on even the possibility of an error having taken place. They even discussed the possible scenario of the defendant not honouring the transactions. 21 The first plaintiff must have realised at the outset that he would have to explain with a certain measure of credibility the purport and significance of all his Internet communications between 1.00am and 3.00am on 13January 2003. 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. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:33 as many as I can! A prospective purchaser is entitled to rely on the terms of the web advertisement. . 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 quintessential approach of the law is to preserve rather than to undermine contracts. He has common business interests with the first, third and fourth plaintiffs. Case Summary 108 Chitty on Contracts (28th Ed, 1999) vol1 observes at para5-035: It is not clear whether for the mistake to be operative it must actually be known to the other party, or whether it is enough that it ought to have been apparent to any reasonable man. 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. He said he had by then discovered from his Internet searches that the price of the laser printer was in the region of $3,000. Plaintiffs counsel indicated that they wanted to further particularise the sixth plaintiffs purchase orders. Desmond intimated that the defendant would give vouchers or special deals as a matter of equitable compensation should it not honour the purchase orders. They were selling a HP laser printer and an employee accidently made a mistake as to the price of the printer on their website. The second, third, fourth and sixth plaintiffs are the only individuals who ordered more than a hundred laser printers each. Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] SGCA 2 Civil Procedure - Costs - Principles - Respondent failing in every aspect of defence except on issue of unilateral mistake - Trial judge awarding full costs to respondent - Whether respondent entitled to full costs As most web merchants have automated software responses, they need to ensure that such automated responses correctly reflect their intentions from an objective perspective. But it is difficult to see how that can apply here. 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. Someone referred me to the HP website which shows the price of this HP Colour LaserJet 4600 Series as S$66.00. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:24 huh?? He is 32 years old and conducts his own network marketing business. Limit orders: order to be executed only when the desired price is available. 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. He holds an accounting degree from NTU. He too affirmed from his searches that the normal price of the laser printer was in the region of US$2,000. They assumed that to be the position. At the very least, it has been forcefully asserted that even when a mistake does not result in voiding a contract through the application of common law principles, there remains an independent doctrine of mistake founded in equity which justifies judicial intervention. 60 Prior to placing his order, he was again contacted by the second plaintiff. 151 The claims by the plaintiffs are audacious, opportunistic and contrived. This has clearly caused much confusion in the common law jurisdictions. 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. 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. 122 For now it appears that a mistaken party can have two bites at the cherry. The case went before both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. by the earlier decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502, where the Court of Appeal recognised the doctrine of unilateral mistake in equity, departing from the English position in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2003] QB 679; [2002] 3 WLR 1617; [2002] 4 All ER 689. 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. He subsequently sent the web link to the Epinions website to the first and second plaintiffs. In submissions, his counsel attempted to play down the significance of both this conversation as well as the mass e-mail. 63 It is pertinent he too made web searches using the Google search engine. 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. 681) when the court had to decide the moment of contr act formation by post. There are many different shades of sharp practice or impropriety. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. He commenced practice in 2000 and currently practices with the law firm representing the plaintiffs in this action. 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. The price for equitable justice is uncertainty. The essence of snapping up lies in taking advantage of a known or perceived error in circumstances which ineluctably suggest knowledge of the error. In short, where does the justice reside? He then carried out some checks on the Yahoo search engine to ascertain whether the printer model existed and whether the laser printer could be sold at more than $66. 61 The fifth plaintiff placed an order for 100 laser printers at about 3.51am. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. It became apparent that the plaintiffs misplaced reliance on the extract earlier cited probably also explained their singularly odd conduct in applying for amendments, only to withdraw their application later in attempting to deny the defendant an opportunity to amend its pleadings. brewton livestock auction, anthropologie home outlet california,
Chris Chandler Wsb Husband,
Spinach Stems Benefits,
Articles C