Palm tree justice will only serve to inject uncertainty into the law. Any reasonable person, given the extent of the knowledge and information the plaintiffs were armed with, would have come to a similar conclusion. Adopting an objective standard, executory contracts have in fact been entered into and concluded between the parties. Case Note CONTRACT FORMATION AND MISTAKE IN CYBERSPACE (AGAIN) The There cannot be any legitimate expectation of enforcement on the part of the non-mistaken party seeking to take advantage of appearances. 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. It was listed at the price of $66, when it was advertised on the official HP website for $3,854. However, at the actual hearing of the applications, plaintiffs counsel opposed any amendments whatsoever to the defence and sought leave to withdraw the plaintiffs earlier unilateral amendments. 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. Similar works. 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. 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. The elements of an offer and acceptance are ex facie satisfied in every transaction asserted in the plaintiffs claims. There were altogether 1,008 purchase orders for the laser printers placed by 784 individuals between 8 and 13January 2003. This is a case about predatory pack hunting. It is important not to force into a Procrustean bed principles that have to be modified or discarded when considering novel aspects of the Internet. The plaintiffs refute that the error exonerates the defendant; they insist that a concluded contract is sacrosanct and must be honoured. So its going to be our reputation at stake, we thought we had a successful transaction.. 145 If the price of a product is so absurdly low in relation to its known market value, it stands to reason that a reasonable man would harbour a real suspicion that the price may not be correct or that there may be some troubling underlying basis for such a pricing. Offer and acceptance - The analysis is structured around the It can be persuasively argued that e-mails involving transactions embraced by the Convention are only effective on reaching the recipient. Before retiring for the night, the first plaintiff had a further discussion with the second plaintiff on how to store the laser printers they had ordered. Quoine was operating as a market-maker on their own platform. It would be illogical to have different approaches for different product sales over the Internet. CHWEE KIN KEONG and Others v DIGILANDMALL.COM Pte Ltd (2004) 2 SLR 594. There were no such discussions with potential buyers. Pages 74 Ratings 100% (5) 5 out of 5 people found this document helpful; In support of the latter it might be argued that unlike a posting, e-mail communication takes place in a relatively short time frame. 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. Limit orders: order to be executed only when the desired price is available. All previous discussions and negotiations between the parties proceeded on the basis of the price being fixed at so much per piece. 141 In so far as the sixth plaintiff is concerned, I emphasise that his knowledge and/or conduct of should be equated with that of the third plaintiff. Pginas: 93: High Court - Suit n 202 of 2003. After placing his second order, he admitted making further searches on the Internet to fortify my view that the price of the $66 per printer was not a mistake He was also the only plaintiff who placed an order on the Digilandmall website. By their own admission, they made Internet searches through various search engines to ascertain the profits they could make. These statements are not to be interpreted as a clarion call to rewrite commercial agreements because of a partys unreasonable or ignoble behaviour. This gives their courts a broad and elastic jurisdiction to deal with commercially inappropriate behaviour. 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. It appears that he was also in touch with the fifth plaintiff as evidenced by an e-mail sent later that morning by the fifth plaintiff to both him and the second plaintiff containing research on what companies who had made similar Internet errors did. 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 same view is echoed in Halsburys Laws of Singapore vol7 (Butterworths Asia, 2000) at [80.164]. Sometimes this is made explicit by judges; more often it is the implied basis of the courts decision. 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. 57 Malcolm Tan is 30 years old and a practising advocate and solicitor. When pressed why he asked MsToh to do this research, the fifth plaintiffs response was unsatisfactory. Prejudice is to be viewed broadly to encompass any injustice and embraces both procedural and substantive notions; (d) recognising that while a costs award against the party seeking late amendments can frequently alleviate any inconvenience caused, this may not always be appropriate; (e) taking into account policy considerations that require finality in proceedings and proper time management of the courts resources and scheduling. High Court and Court of Appeal, recently, in a number of case . The element of constructive knowledge based upon what a reasonable person ought to know is premised upon that person not being conscious of the error. Indeed he had conduct of significant phases of these proceedings on behalf of the plaintiffs. Case Note: Singapore | Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review The product descriptions in all the other pages of the respective websites, at the material time, carried a full detailed description of all advertised products. 24 While the first plaintiff conceded that he had communicated to the second and third plaintiffs the existence of a good deal, he maintained he did not discuss the possibility of the pricing being a mistake. How do I Locate Case Law?: Case Names & Citations 144 I find, in the alternative, that the plaintiffs, given each of their backgrounds, would in any event, each have separately realised and appreciated, before placing their purchase orders, that a manifest mistake had occurred even if no communications on the error had taken place between them. Ltd.1 has the makings of a student's classic for several reasons: it presents a textbook example of offer and acceptance; it is set in the context of internet contracting; it involves the use in evidence of email, instantaneous messaging, and short messaging system (SMS); and it . 44 He made his first purchase of ten laser printers at about 2.42am. 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. I categorically reject their evidence in so far as it attempts to hermetically compartmentalise their knowledge and discussions. It appears there were a series of sms messages between them and at least a few telephone discussions while the purchases were being effected. 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. 36 The second plaintiff was the key person and pivotal in the entire chain of events. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall Pte Ltd - LawTeacher.net As for the common law on unilateral mistake, it is claimed that the acid test for its application is not satisfied. The reach of and potential response(s) to such an advertisement are however radically different. Despite the general views expressed in. Having ascertained that the laser printer was being advertised at $66, he decided to undertake further online searches through Yahoo.com and Ebay.com. This may be too high a price to pay in this area of the law. The e-mails sent at 2.34am were also captioned Go load it now! 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. Imagine the effect of this negative publicity on your future sales! The Canadian and Australian cases have moved along with the eddies of unconscionability. The decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in 25659 BC Ltd v 456795 BC Ltd (1999) 171DLR(4th) 470 at [25] to [26], is instructive: 25 The law of mistake was discussed in depth by McLachlinCJBC in First City Capital Ltd v BC Building Corp (1989), 43BLR 29 (SC). The contract stands according to the natural meaning of the words used. 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. [2005] 1 SLR(R) 0502 Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte The amounts ordered and the hurried and hasty manner in which the orders were executed are of cardinal importance. 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 short, where does the justice reside? Doctrine and fairness in the law of contract - Cambridge Core Bulletin_11_2009 - CLJLaw The transcript states that the third and the fifth plaintiffs saw a great opportunity and grabbed it. A number of them have very close relationships, with some of them even sharing common business interests. I found their attempts to play down the impact of the statements which they had, to all intents and purposes, willingly and deliberately made earlier, unconvincing. They then argue that as equitable defences have not been pleaded, the court has no alternative but to allow the claim. Slade, in a well reasoned article written not long after Solle v Butcher was decided, asserted: In general, it is submitted that there are no cases which support the proposition that in cases of unilateral mistake, V [the enforcing party] may obtain this relief where the contract is not void at law and there has been no misrepresentation. [emphasis added]. In doing so, they appear to have also conflated equitable and common law concepts. Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. He is also a director and shareholder in a company engaging in wholesale trade, together with the second and third plaintiffs. 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. But there would have, at least, to be some real reason to suppose the existence of a mistake before it could be incumbent on one party to question whether another party meant what he or she said. Chwee Kin Keong vs Digilandmall.com - Free download as Powerpoint Presentation (.ppt / .pptx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or view presentation slides online. 125 The principal source of this view has been Lord DenningMR. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Needless to say, this goes to the very heart of the claims sustainability. VKR a j a hJ C. 27-30 January; 2-6, 9 February; 13 March; 12 April 2004. The payment mode opted for was cash on delivery. He then zealously sent at about 2.58am, an e-mail to 54 persons, all of whom were friends and/or business associates. The question is what is capable of displacing that apparent agreement. 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. Consideration was less than executory and non-existent. As the Channel NewsAsia report so succinctly summarised they saw a great opportunity and grabbed it. 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?? 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. This pricing was a mistake, which was fundamental to the contract and the complainants must have known that this absurdly low pricing was an error by the defendants. There could be different considerations. Alternatively, knowledge may be readily inferred from what would be regarded as commonly known or notorious facts in the context of the transaction. His credibility on the material points was dubious, at best. When the defendant learnt of the error, it promptly removed the advertisement from its websites, and informed the plaintiffs as well as 778 others who had placed orders for a total of 4,086 laser printers that the price posting was an unfortunate error, and that it would therefore not be meeting the orders. To that extent, his evidence that he subsequently dismissed the notion altogether is unacceptable. Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594; [2004] SGHC 71 Suit No: Suit 202/2003/E Decision Date: 12 Apr 2004 Court: High Court Coram: V K Rajah JC Counsel: Tan Sok Ling, Malcolm Tan and Mohan Das Vijayaratnam (Tan S L and Partners) for plaintiffs, Philip Fong Yeng Fatt and Doris Chia Ming Lai (Harry Elias This is clearly a mistake as they could not possible be sold for an amount that in a commercial situation. She opined that situations where unilateral mistake had been considered were those involving fraud or a very high degree of misconduct. This is essentially a matter of language and intention, objectively ascertained. The plaintiffs were not being candid when they portrayed very limited exchanges between themselves, dealing allegedly with only the profits to be made and their ability to resell the laser printers. The payment mode opted for was cash on delivery. 118 The Canadian courts have been the most active common law courts explicating and developing this area of the law.