chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court

Adopting an objective standard, executory contracts have in fact been entered into and concluded between the parties. 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 . This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. In Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR (R) 594 (" Digilandmall.com "), the plaintiffs concerned placed orders over the Internet for a total of 1,606 Hewlett Packard commercial laser printers on the defendant (seller's) websites. 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. 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. In turn, the ICQ chat session involving the first plaintiff and the respective plaintiffs exchange of e-mails played a significant role in undermining their credibility and claims. As this is a critical issue, it is imperative that each of their positions be carefully evaluated. The plaintiffs orders were processed by the defendants automated system and confirmation notes were automatically despatched to the plaintiffs within a few minutes. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:33 as many as I can! Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR(R) 594; [2004] 2 SLR 594 (refd) Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter [2009] 2 SLR(R) 332; [2009] 2 SLR 332 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. 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. The recipient rule appears to be the logical default rule. Normally the contract is only concluded when the acceptance is communicated by the offeree to the offeror. From time to time they communicate with each other via the Internet and the short messaging system (sms). The Canadian and Australian cases have moved along with the eddies of unconscionability. It appears there were a series of sms messages between them and at least a few telephone discussions while the purchases were being effected. Document Citado por Relacionados. Mistakes are usually synonymous with the existence of carelessness on the part of the mistaken party. This can be supported by the decision of the High Court of Singapore in the case of Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, in which Judicial Commissioner Rajah argued that "the party who selects the means of communication should bear the consequences of any unexpected events" . June Proctor, 1997, p. 13. He in effect forwarded the first plaintiffs e-mail to them. The first and fifth plaintiffs ordered exactly a hundred laser printers each. These statements are not to be interpreted as a clarion call to rewrite commercial agreements because of a partys unreasonable or ignoble behaviour. He is currently a supervisor in the taxation department of an international accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche, specialising in corporate taxation services. 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. If this rule applies to international sales, is it sensible to have a different rule for domestic sales? The businessmen saw a great opportunity and grabbed it placing an order for 1,000 printers. 54 The fourth plaintiff admits that he had entertained the idea at the material time that the price posting could have been an error. As a matter of fairness, allowing amendments at a late stage should usually go hand in hand with granting leave to the other party to adduce further evidence, if necessary. 90 After leave was granted to amend the defence, each of the plaintiffs filed a further short affidavit refuting knowledge of the mistake relating to pricing. 27-30 January; 2-6, 9 February; 13 March; 12 April 2004 . 39 The sequence of orders placed by the second plaintiff in the short space of an hour and a half deserves some mention. In Chwee Kin Keong and ors v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, 5 VK Rajah JC, as His Honour then was, decided against the rule-based approach in Moss v Malings. . Their reference to arbitraging was a nebulous fig leaf designed to legitimise their conduct in a cloak of legal and commercial respectability. 681) when the court had to decide the moment of contr act formation by post. Why? Failure to do so could also result in calamitous repercussions. In Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal was asked to consider if the decision in Great Peace Shipping also had the effect of excluding equity's jurisdiction . The plaintiffs also assert in their submissions that if contracts are only upheld if parties acted honourably there would be very few contracts left standing in the commercial world. There is no larger noble principle, such as the sanctity of contracts, to be observed or protected in these proceedings. 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. The prospective buyer has to make an offer to purchase which is then accepted by the merchant. 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. 73 The sixth plaintiffs orders did not receive matching confirmations from the defendant as his e-mail box was full. 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. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:42 I want at least one for personal use 2 would be good coz my gf needs one too any more than that would be a bonus ;-), Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:43 anyway, I dont mind buying over if you have frens who want to sell buy at twice the price!! A prospective purchaser is entitled to rely on the terms of the web advertisement. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. 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. The quintessential approach of the law is to, 106 In the Singapore context, the first port of call when confronted with issues of contract law is inevitably Professor Andrew Phangs treatise on. This could account for the substantial number of Canadian cases in this area of the law. Altogether different considerations may arise if a party, at a late stage, seeks through an amendment to adduce further evidence to support that same amendment. The defendants argued this pricing was a unilateral mistake and that the complainants took advantage of this. The pleadings, in such instances, merely formalise what is already before the court. In New Zealand, the legislature enacted the Contractual Mistake Act 1977. Cases of fraud and misrepresentation, and undue influence, are all catered for under other existing and uncontentious equitable rules. CHWEE KIN KEONG v DIGILANDMALL.COM Pte Ltd (2005) SGCA 2. com Pte Ltd30 that was primarily about unilateral mistake. There was also no indication that the product was being sold on promotion. 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 present article analyses the many important issues that are raised by what is probably the first case on Internet mistake - the Singapore High Court decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594. The recipients of this e-mail included the second, fourth, fifth plaintiffs and Tan Cheng Peng, the third plaintiffs girlfriend. Mistakes are usually synonymous with the existence of carelessness on the part of the mistaken party. In addition to the law of (especially, unilateral) mistake, issues relating to the formation of a contract will be considered (including the law relating to offer and . 56 He vacillated throughout his evidence between a propensity to embellish his evidence on the one hand and to hold back on the other. The fact that it may have been negligent is not a relevant factor in these proceedings. He acknowledged having had conversations with the other plaintiffs about how much money we can sell the printer and how much we can make and about storage space as well as how many units we intend to buy. The fact that the acceptance was automatically generated by a computer software cannot in any manner exonerate the defendant from responsibility. I hope by the time you see this email, the price is still at S$66.00 coz they might change it anytime. Gill & Duffus Landauer Ltd v London Export Corp GmbH [1982] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 627. 45 The most telling aspect of the third plaintiffs evidence is his admission that he made Internet searches relating to the pricing of the laser printer, immediately after he was contacted by the first plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that she placed orders for 32 laser printers including 20 units she ordered on behalf of her sister. We can understand why the decision in Bell v Lever Bros Ltd did not find favour with Lord DenningMR. An equitable jurisdiction to grant rescission on terms where a common fundamental mistake has induced a contract gives greater flexibility than a doctrine of common law which holds the contract void in such circumstances. The credit card payments had not been processed. 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. It was found that the plaintiffs must have known or realised that the offer did not express the true intention of the defendants. In this case, Defendant was selling IT products over internet in Singapore. in the High Court decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd,2 from the perspective of economics. 38 The second plaintiff came across as intelligent and resourceful. [emphasis added]. These orders were placed at a price of S$66 each, whereas the actual price was S$3,854 each. They contended that the entire ICQ conversation, infused with such a jocular tone, should be disregarded. COOTE, B. This contention is wholly untenable. 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. After further sms exchanges, the second plaintiff contacted the fifth plaintiff on his mobile phone, urging him to return home to access the e-mail message he had just sent. reference was made by the court to "fraud or a very high degree of misconduct" before the non- mistaken party could be . It is set in the context of internet contracting. The current general approach is correctly stated in Professor Jeffrey Pinslers Singapore Court Practice 2003 (LexisNexis, 2003) at para20/5/7: An amendment may be allowed even after both parties have made their closing submissions. Palm tree justice will only serve to inject uncertainty into the law. Media reports after the discovery of the mistake. 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. 127 The attempt to conflate the concept of common law mistake and the equitable jurisdiction over mistake is understandable but highly controversial. There is no doubt that the plaintiffs acted with indecent haste in the dead of the night in placing as many orders as each of them felt their financial resources credibly permitted them to do. They were selling a HP laser printer and an employee accidently made a mistake as to the price of the printer on their website. Between 3.13am and 4.00am the second plaintiff revisited the website four times placing four further orders for 20 laser printers each time. All previous discussions and negotiations between the parties proceeded on the basis of the price being fixed at so much per piece. In support of the latter it might be argued that unlike a posting, e-mail communication takes place in a relatively short time frame. The phrase call to enquire, it is contended, was in effect a condition precedent. When considering the appropriate rule to apply, it stands to reason that as between sender and receiver, the party who selects the means of communication should bear the consequences of any unexpected events. 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 Bell v Lever Bros Ltd [1932] AC 161 and Solle v Butcher. 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. 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. 91 There is no real conundrum as to whether contractual principles apply to Internet contracts. It appears that it wanted to leave no stone unturned and had therefore mounted a root and branch attack on the plaintiffs claims. He appears to have been in constant communication with the second plaintiff and to have received and read the mass e-mail from the first plaintiff after he placed his first purchase order. Philip Fong Yeng Fatt and Doris Chia Ming Lai (Harry Elias Partnership) for defendant, Chwee Kin Keong; Tan Wei Teck; Yeow Kinn Keong Mark; Ow Eng Hwee; Tan Chun Chuen Malcolm; Yeow Kinn Oei The e-mails had all the characteristics of an unequivocal acceptance. 53 He claimed that seeing the same price on the Digilandmall website confirmed his view that there had been no mistake. In Chwee Kin Keong v . 29 The first plaintiff struck me as an opportunistic entrepreneur. 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. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. 66 The fifth plaintiff also gave evidence that the next morning, when he logged on his computer, he noted that a Hong Kong lawyer friend, Coral Toh, was also logged onto her computer. 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.