chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court

The elements of an offer and acceptance are ex facie satisfied in every transaction asserted in the plaintiffs claims. 121 While my views here are not central to my decision, the plaintiffs have adverted to this relationship in a misguided attempt to derail the defence on an arid pleading technicality. 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. One of the few cases on electronic contract formation in Singapore was Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall. 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. 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. Contract doctrine is substantially predicated upon achieving an ethical equilibrium between the individualistic ethic and community ethic in order to protect reasonable or legitimate expectations. 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. Law, Fairness and Economics - Unilateral Mistake in Digilandmall case concerning the purchase of laser printers from an online retailer, Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall 76 : To effect the purchase transactions on the respective websites, the plaintiffs had to navigate through several web pages. 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. e-Archive | SAcLJ | AP Journals Online 131 In a number of cases, including the present, it may not really matter which view is preferred. 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). He commenced practice in 2000 and currently practices with the law firm representing the plaintiffs in this action. 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. 103 The amalgam of factors a court will have to consider in risk allocation ought to include: (a) the need to observe the principle of upholding rather than destroying contracts, (b) the need to facilitate the transacting of electronic commerce, and. 34 He also visited the Digilandmall website to familiarise himself with their standard terms and conditions. This was presumably to render the training more lifelike. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com (2005) - Singaporean case 3d printers sold for $66 instead of $3,800. 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. Though the actual price of the laser printer was $3,854, the defendant had on 8January 2003 mistakenly posted the price at $66.00 on its websites. This is much closer to the truth than the picture he has tried to paint in these proceedings. 16 When the first plaintiff eventually succeeded in accessing the HP website, he immediately placed an order for 100 laser printers at about 2.05am, charging the transaction to his credit card. Litigation Singapore Lawyer, Doris Chia - David Lim & Partners LLP Not all one-sided transactions or bargains are improper. 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 ] SGHC 71 paginator.book page 594 tuesday, november 2009 7:05 am 594 singapore law reports (reissue . 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. The question is what is capable of displacing that apparent agreement. The defendant even had its terms and conditions posted on its website. Civil Procedure Pleadings . The decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in, 25 The law of mistake was discussed in depth by McLachlinCJBC in. v . Certainty in commercial transactions should not be trifled with, as this will inevitably affect how commercial and business exchanges are respected and effected. 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" . Parties Chwee Kin Keong & Others v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. Decision date 12/04/2004. 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. In common mistake, both parties make the same mistake. This e-mail was sent only, 29 The first plaintiff struck me as an opportunistic entrepreneur. 33 After his first order, the second plaintiff contacted the fourth and fifth plaintiffs informing them about the laser printers. 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings. It deals with the process rather than the substance of how to divine the rule. Chwee Kin Keong and others v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. [2004] SGHC 71. This could account for the substantial number of Canadian cases in this area of the law. (PDF) Unilateral Mistake in Contract: Five Degrees of - ResearchGate If he was prepared to commit this view in writing to a larger circle of 54 friends and business associates after his communication with the second and third plaintiffs, he would certainly have shared this view with his close friends with even greater candour and detail. There is therefore no pre-condition in law for a mistaken party to show an absence of carelessness to avail himself of this defence; the law precludes a person from seeking to gain an advantage improperly in such circumstances. Article24 of the Convention states: For the purposes of this Part of the Convention, an offer, declaration of acceptance or any other indication of intention reaches the addressee when it is made orally to him or delivered by any other means to him personally, to his place of business or mailing address or, if he does not have a place of business or mailing address, to his habitual residence. 140 The defendant has however properly asserted that there was a unilateral mistake that vitiated all the contracts. chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court. The case of Chwee Kin Keong & Ors v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 71, and the decision by VK Rajah JC, has received much public attention. His credibility on the material points was dubious, at best. Date of Verdicts: 12 April 2004, 13 January 2005. 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. He claims visiting, 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings. While they did not invariably admit that their searches were made prior to each of the respective transactions, it was plain that they did not tell the whole truth about, 149 It is clear from the authorities reviewed that such a contract, if entered into by a party with actual or presumed knowledge of an error, is void from the outset. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! 85 Having stated the general rule, it is imperative that the rationale underlying this approach be understood. The pleadings, in such instances, merely formalise what is already before the court. 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). 70 The third plaintiff proceeded to place orders on behalf of the sixth plaintiff on the HP website. 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. Others do not. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:25 ok but how come got such a good deal? Consideration was less than executory and non-existent. The Canadian and Australian cases have moved along with the eddies of unconscionability. 65 He was particularly circumspect in recounting his communications with the second plaintiff. 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. It is unequivocally unethical conduct tantamount to sharp practice. Tiong Min Yeo - SSRN There is often, but not inexorably, a co-relationship between the timing when the amendment is sought and the adverse consequences for the other party. 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. 44 He made his first purchase of ten laser printers at about 2.42am. 99 Like the somewhat arbitrary selection of the postal rule for ordinary mail, in the ultimate analysis, a default rule should be implemented for certainty, while accepting that such a rule should be applied flexibly to minimise unjustness. The issue in this case was whether the pricing was a mistake and if the contract would be fulfilled. Here are some examples of case citations for other jurisdictions. It takes the view that there is no jurisdiction in equity to rescind a contract that is valid at common law, on the basis of mistake. Mistakes are usually synonymous with the existence of carelessness on the part of the mistaken party. It has been pithily said that the rules of procedure should be viewed as a handmaiden and not a mistress, to be slavishly followed.

Tesla Stock Forecast 2025 Gov Capital, Richard Speight Jr Cleidocranial Dysplasia, Wayne Williams Documentary, Nina Dobrev And Shaun White Split, Poems About Diversity In The Classroom, Articles C