chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court

Desmond: 13/01/20 01:41 u want it for profit or personal use? In light of this, the parties did not address me on the issue of when the contract was formed, though this appears to be a relevant issue depending on which rule is adopted. Normally the contract is only concluded when the acceptance is communicated by the offeree to the offeror. I am not prepared, after full consideration, to assume that the reporters misquoted the facts. 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. Despite the general views expressed in. Ltd.1 has the makings of a student's classic for several reasons: it presents a textbook . The pleadings, in such instances, merely formalise what is already before the court. The contract stands according to the natural meaning of the words used. 17 Having called the second and third plaintiffs at about 2.00am, the first plaintiff also sent them, via e-mail, a weblink of the relevant HP website pages. Cory had chosen this mode of communication; therefore he How come got such thing? As such, I would strongly appeal to you to reconsider your decision. It may be impractical and unjust to demand that the mistaken party actually prove the knowledge of a substantial number of people who effect numerous purchases. It is not in dispute that the defendant made a genuine error. 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. There are in this connection two schools of thought. 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. The fact that it may have been negligent is not a relevant factor in these proceedings. What amounts to snapping up is a question of degree that will incorporate a spectrum of contextual factors: what is objectively and subjectively known, the magnitude of the transaction(s), the circumstances in which the orders are placed and whether any unusual factors are apparent. Yong Pung HowCJ in Tribune Investment Trust Inc v Soosan Trading Co Ltd [2000] 3 SLR 405 at [40] opined: [T]he function of the court is to try as far as practical experience allows, to ensure that the reasonable expectations of honest men are not disappointed. 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. The first and fifth plaintiffs ordered exactly a hundred laser printers each. He has incorporated an Internet business Dreamcupid in which the second plaintiff has an interest. 136 First, it was suggested that no contracts had been formed as all the contracts were subject to availability and that a failure to adhere to the directive call to enquire prevented the contracts from coming into existence. He graduated with an accounting degree from NTU. The decision of V.K. No modern authority was cited to me suggesting an intended commercial transaction of this nature could ever fail for want of consideration. They even discussed the possible scenario of the defendant not honouring the transactions. Ltd. Yeo Tiong Min* I. He had left everything to his brother. 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. This contention is wholly untenable. Has an agreement been reached or not? 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 There was no element of surprise or prejudice to the plaintiffs as the points raised had already been developed by the defendant and addressed by the plaintiffs. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version. The most recent and authoritative pronouncement in this area (per Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers in Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] 3 WLR 1371 at [123]) states: 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). The very foundations of predictability, certainty and efficacy, underpinning contractual dealings, will be undermined if the law and/or equity expands the scope of the mistake exception with alacrity or uncertainty. He holds an accounting degree from NTU. But it is difficult to see how that can apply here. In the High Court, the learned judge ("the Judge") decided, in the main, in favour of the Purchaser. The following excerpt is particularly significant and compelling: 23 The subsequent exchange further clarifies that the first plaintiff was fully conscious of the potential profit element arising from the purchase of a substantial number of the laser printers. He is currently employed as an accountant in an accounting firm, Ernst & Young. 48 The third plaintiff annexed to his affidavit the transcript of the Channel NewsAsia report where he was quoted. 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. chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court. The shopping cart website page carried the insertion call to enquire under the heading Availability of product. He placed another order for a further 150 printers at 3.14am, followed by two further orders for 300 printers each at about 3.56am and 3.59am. It is asserted that since mistake had not been pleaded as an equitable defence, equity cannot be invoked by the defendant. The other school of thought views the approach outlined earlier with considerable scepticism. 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. 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. 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. Promotions would be indicated by a P inside a yellow circle next to the product in question. It appears that it wanted to leave no stone unturned and had therefore mounted a root and branch attack on the plaintiffs claims. 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. 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. He said that he wanted to be sure that the offer on the HP website was genuine. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. Rather they assist in explaining how the common law has incrementally and cautiously allowed and continues to mould exceptions to the application of the objective theory of contracts. Transactions over websites are almost invariably instantaneous and/or interactive. The defendants wanted to sell some hare skins to the plaintiffs. They proceeded to file their amendments to the statement of claim as if leave had already been given. HIGH COURT. I reject this. The brief will discuss whether a tort of invasion of privacy should be developed by the courts. 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. Someone referred me to the HP website which shows the price of this HP Colour LaserJet 4600 Series as S$66.00. The fact that the acceptance was automatically generated by a computer software cannot in any manner exonerate the defendant from responsibility. 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. Having pointed out 6 that a court 'will generally be cautious if not reluctant to effect any amendments once the hearing has commenced; even more so once the evidential phase of the . 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 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. These statements are not to be interpreted as a clarion call to rewrite commercial agreements because of a partys unreasonable or ignoble behaviour. 148 The circumstances under which the orders were placed and the quantities sought to be purchased wholly undermine counsels variegated contentions that the plaintiffs lacked knowledge of or belief in the existence of a mistake. With reference to the judgement, the case explores pricing mistakes by online stores. The recipient rule is therefore more convenient and relevant in the context of both instantaneous or near instantaneous communications. 65 He was particularly circumspect in recounting his communications with the second plaintiff. I would not however invariably equate the required conduct with fraud. 33 See the Singapore Court of Appeal decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd[2005] 1 SLR 502 (noted by Yeo, TM ' Great Peace: a distant disturbance ' (2005) 121 Law Quarterly Review 393 Google Scholar; KFK Low 'Unilateral mistake at common law and in equity' [2005] Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 423; and PW . A steady stream of decisions from common law courts indicate a measured but nevertheless distinctly incremental willingness to extend the scope of the exception to not just actual knowledge, but deemed or constructive knowledge as well. It was listed at the price of $66, when it was advertised on the official HP website for $3,854. There was no satisfactory reason for the genesis of this e-mail (see [67] infra). . Consideration was less than executory and non-existent. Needless to say, he could not satisfactorily explain why his previous solicitors had formed such a view when preparing his affidavit and why he had affirmed the same. If an offeree understands an offer in accordance with its natural meaning and accepts it, the offeror cannot be heard to say that he intended the words of his offer to have a different meaning. The only court judgement on the theme is Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, a judgement of the Singapore High Court. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR 502: [2005] SGCA 2 Context: This Case deals with the issue of unilateral mistake. This price was much lower than the actual retail price, and had been posted on the defendant's website by mistake. I must add that these were far from being ordinary printers for home use. In a, WHILE surfing the Net at about 2am on Monday, MrTan Wei Teck stumbled upon an offer, 82 The plaintiffs strenuously opposed the defendants amendments principally on the ground it was made at a late juncture. Part of the training module included hands-on training with a new template for a Price Mass Upload function. He would make some basic enquiries to ascertain whether there is anything faulty with the product in an attempt to seek an explanation for or understanding of the basis for the price discrepancy; he might alternatively try and ascertain whether perhaps the price differential is part of some spectacular promotional exercise. 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. It is simply inconceivable that when he entered into the purchase transaction, he did not know, or at the very least did not have a real and abiding belief that the price posting was an error. Because it was simply a matter of time before the error would inevitably be noticed and the pricing inevitably corrected. Merchants may find their contracts formed in foreign jurisdictions and therefore subject to foreign laws. 81 Plaintiffs counsel thereafter responded somewhat curiously. Mistakes are usually synonymous with the existence of carelessness on the part of the mistaken party. 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. 30 Tan Wei Teck is 30 years old. They have taken into account both the English and Australian authorities in distilling the jurisprudence in this area. Needless to say, this goes to the very heart of the claims sustainability. Given his professional and business background, he must have realised that the $66 price posting on the HP website was an error. It would be fair to say that such a person should not have any legitimate expectation that the contract in question will be either respected or sanctioned by court. 96 In an Internet sale, a prospective purchaser is not able to view the physical stock available. 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. They stoutly assert that they were too preoccupied with the realisation of potential profits through a so-called arbitrage position between different markets to contemplate that an error had been made. In his initial affidavit he admitted wondering whether the price was a mistake after his first order was placed. 15 Early on the morning of 13January 2003 at about 1.17am, the first plaintiff received a message from a friend, Desmond Tan (Desmond), through an Internet chatlink. Indeed, the time may have come for the common law to shed the pretence of searching for consideration to uphold commercial contracts. This view seems to suggest that principles of equity invariably provide an equally strong but more elastic second string to the bow. For example, in the Singapore High Court decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594 ("Digilandmall"), affirmed on appeal in Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR 502 without considering this particular issue, V K Rajah JC (as he then was) observed, as follows (at [139]):