chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court

Altogether he sought to purchase 760 units, the largest number of orders placed by anyone between 8 and 13January 2003. Notwithstanding, the defendant does not take issue with this as the sixth plaintiffs orders were received and the appropriate automated responses generated. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. Therefore, administrative law encompasses Is the Right to Privacy Adequately Protected? He in effect forwarded the first plaintiffs e-mail to them. Cory had chosen this mode of communication; therefore he To my mind, the confirmation through the subsequent searches that the actual price of the laser printer was, in fact, US$2,000 would, if anything, have affirmed his belief that an error had occurred. 150 The plaintiffs have contended that this court ought to follow the decision in Taylor v Johnson and hold that the contract is not void under common law but voidable only in equity. His own counsels description of him as careful and prudent only serves to corroborate this. Chwee Kin K eong and others . The defendant programmed the software. Errors may incur wholly unexpected, and sometimes untoward, consequences as these proceedings so amply demonstrate. Offer and acceptances have to reach an intended recipient to be efective. 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. 143 The stark gaping difference between the price posting and the market price of the laser printer would have made it obvious to any objective person that something was seriously amiss. 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. He was also involved in initiating the Channel NewsAsia report (see [78] and [79], 77 Soon after the defendant informed the plaintiffs that they did not intend to deliver the laser printers, the plaintiffs took their claims to the press. When notified and satisfied that this transaction was successful as well, he placed a final order at 4.21am for ten laser printers on the HP website, charging this to his credit card. There is however much to be said in favour of rationalising the law of mistake under a single doctrine incorporating the best elements of common law and equity. Case law Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmallcom Pte Ltd suggests that General Rule. I even went to both the HP Web-Site as well as the DigilandMall Web-site to see if the prices were the same. There was also no indication that the product was being sold on promotion. Despite their familial relationship, the legal relationship between the two of them was that of agent and principal. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version. , In unilateral mistake, only one of the parties is mistaken. This is without basis. 134 It is not really in issue that contracts can be effectively concluded over the Internet and that programmed computers sending out automated responses can bind the sender. In common mistake, both parties make the same mistake. Again he attempted to minimise the impact of these observations by saying his subsequent searches erased all such doubts. Part of the training module included hands-on training with a new template for a Price Mass Upload function. 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. V K Rajah JC. 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 decision ofV.K. This is a case about predatory pack hunting. Before dealing with the point of real substance, it is appropriate to briefly deal with two of the less meritorious contentions advanced. Document Citado por Relacionados. Merchants may find their contracts formed in foreign jurisdictions and therefore subject to foreign laws. 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. 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 product descriptions in all the other pages of the respective websites, at the material time, carried a full detailed description of all advertised products. The complainants had ordered over 100 printers each at this price. No cash had been collected. If the defendant were right, they maintain, uncertainty would prevail in the commercial world and more particularly in Internet transactions. The first, second and third plaintiffs have been friends for a long time and are bound by common business interests. The plaintiffs are, however, entitled to the cost of the amendments, in any event, which I fix at $1,000. v . The financial consequences could be considerable. 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. They were high-end commercial laser printers. In doing so, they appear to have also conflated equitable and common law concepts. He confirmed through these searches that the usual price of the laser printers was in the region of US$2,000. This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. 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. 134 It is not really in issue that contracts can be effectively concluded over the Internet and that programmed computers sending out automated responses can bind the sender. 123 One view maintains that the mistaken party can either attempt to have the contract declared void at common law if the mistake is fundamental or radical, or alternatively seek a remedy in equity, which could include rescission. [emphasis added]. 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. 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. 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. 44 He made his first purchase of ten laser printers at about 2.42am. 48 The third plaintiff annexed to his affidavit the transcript of the Channel NewsAsia report where he was quoted. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 105 It is not only reasonable but right that the objective appearance of a contract should not operate in favour of a party who is aware, in the eyes of the law, of the true state of affairs when, for instance, there is real misapprehension on the part of the mistaken party and when the actual reality of the situation is starkly obvious. 3. It deals with the process rather than the substance of how to divine the rule. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. To that extent, his evidence that he subsequently dismissed the notion altogether is unacceptable. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Market orders: order to be executed immediately at the best available price. I found his entire evidence relating to his communication with the first and other plaintiffs unsatisfactory and in many aspects incredulous. There are many different shades of sharp practice or impropriety. This price was much lower than the actual retail price, and had been posted on the defendant's website by mistake. Counsels approach is flawed. 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. 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. The evidence incontrovertibly indicates that the first plaintiff himself entertained this view for the entire period he was in communication with the second and third plaintiffs. The initial order for 30 laser printers was placed at round 3.45am while the second order for 300 units was placed at around 3.53am. It is not in dispute that the defendant made a genuine error. 126 The Australian courts appear to have relied on the views of Lord DenningMR in Solle v Butcher to establish a wholly different doctrinal approach to mistake and have purportedly applied a fused concept of law and equity to the law on mistake. 139 Next, the defendant contends that no consideration passed from the plaintiffs to them. 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 the Singapore context a similar approach has been adopted by the Court of Appeal in, 105 It is not only reasonable but right that the objective appearance of a contract should not operate in favour of a party who is aware, in the eyes of the law, of the true state of affairs when, for instance, there is real misapprehension on the part of the mistaken party and when the actual reality of the situation is starkly obvious. They proceeded to file their amendments to the statement of claim as if leave had already been given. 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. 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. Date of Verdicts: 12 April 2004, 13 January 2005. 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. This short but highly significant e-mail reads: Subject: IMPT HP Colour LaserJet going at only $66!! In Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd , 1 one of the defendant's employees mistakenly uploaded the contents of a training template onto the defendant's website, resulting in the retail price of S$3,854 for a commercial laser printer on the website being replaced with the figure S$66. While these contentions were well within the scope of the evidence adduced and their respective lines of cross-examination, they appeared to transgress their respective pleadings. There were altogether 1,008 purchase orders for the laser printers placed by 784 individuals between 8 and 13January 2003. In terms of chronological sequence, the initial page accessed was the shopping cart, followed by checkout-order . He is currently self-employed and is intimately involved in the multi-level marketing sales of aromatherapy products under the Bel-Air label. This provision acknowledges that the essential framework of an electronic contract needs to be considered in the usual manner; in other words, principles of contract formation, consideration, terms and conditions, choice of law and jurisdictional issues need to be examined. Following closely to the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong & Others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594 as a precedent with similar context, the court would most likely try to determine if there is an existence of a contract or if an agreement has been reached in the first place, so we refer to Lord Phillips in Shogun Finance Ltd v As a lawyer, he appears to have been indispensable in the plaintiffs attempts to hold the defendant to the bargain. 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. It is essential that the law be perceived as embodying rationality and fairness while respecting the commercial imperative of certainty. 35 In addition to these conversations, the second plaintiff also accessed the Epinions website and sent a related e-mail to the first plaintiff. The case of, The offer was wrongly expressed, and the defendants by their evidence, and by the correspondence, have satisfied me that the plaintiff, 116 The term snapping up was aptly coined by JamesLJ in, 117 It should be emphasised that this stream of authority is consistently recognised by all the major common law jurisdictions. 106 In the Singapore context, the first port of call when confronted with issues of contract law is inevitably Professor Andrew Phangs treatise on Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmstons Law of Contract (2nd Singapore and Malaysian Ed, 1998). 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 reach of and potential response(s) to such an advertisement are however radically different. In doing so, they appear to have also conflated equitable and common law concepts. 92 The Electronics Transaction Act (Cap88, 1999Rev Ed) (ETA) places Internet contractual dealings on a firmer footing. The first issue dealt with references made by the plaintiffs to certain embargoed material. He offered to buy a laser printer from Desmond at double the price, that is $132. 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. If coherence is to be restored to this area of our law, it can only be by declaring that there is no jurisdiction to grant rescission of a contract on the ground of common mistake where that contract is valid and enforceable on ordinary principles of contract law. Furthermore, unlike a fax or a telephone call, it is not instantaneous. in the High Court decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd,2 from the perspective of economics. In his initial affidavit he admitted wondering whether the price was a mistake after his first order was placed. Plaintiffs counsel indicated that they wanted to further particularise the sixth plaintiffs purchase orders. E-mails are processed through servers, routers and Internet service providers. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:24 just ordered 3 colour lazer printer for S$66.00 each. 13 The first plaintiff, Chwee Kin Keong, is 29 years old. Rather, in my opinion, constructive knowledge alone will suffice to invoke equitys conscience. . It appears that it wanted to leave no stone unturned and had therefore mounted a root and branch attack on the plaintiffs claims. A prospective purchaser is entitled to rely on the terms of the web advertisement. 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 reason for this inconsistent conduct surfaced later. Quoine was operating as a market-maker on their own platform. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594; [2004] SGHC 71. 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. 73 The sixth plaintiffs orders did not receive matching confirmations from the defendant as his e-mail box was full. On the issue of his actual knowledge and communications with the other plaintiffs at the material time, I found his evidence unsatisfactory. It is pertinent to note that she placed orders for 32 laser printers including 20 units she ordered on behalf of her sister. It appears there were a series of sms messages between them and at least a few telephone discussions while the purchases were being effected. They have taken into account both the English and Australian authorities in distilling the jurisprudence in this area. 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. 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. 28 In any event, the first plaintiffs commercial background and business experience alone would have amply alerted him to the likelihood of the pricing being a mistake, even without his conversation with Desmond. Transactions over websites are almost invariably instantaneous and/or interactive. 55 The fourth plaintiff is technologically savvy and runs an Internet business with the second plaintiff. 82 The plaintiffs strenuously opposed the defendants amendments principally on the ground it was made at a late juncture. I note that there have been powerful arguments made to the contrary. In this case, Defendant was selling IT products over internet in Singapore. 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. Despite the general views expressed in. They have taken into account both the English and Australian authorities in distilling the jurisprudence in this area. 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. 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. Indeed, in difficult cases, the courts in several common law jurisdictions have gone to extraordinary lengths to conjure up consideration. That said, it also offers new avenues of evidential proof offering intimate insights into realtime thought processes and reactions. 110 In OT Africa Line Ltd v Vickers Plc [1996] 1Lloyds Rep 700 at 703, ManceJ held that the objective theory ought not to apply if a party had knowledge that a mistake had occurred: The question is what is capable of displacing that apparent agreement. 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!! 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" . In the Singapore context a similar approach has been adopted by the Court of Appeal in Aircharter World Pte Ltd v Kontena Nasional Bhd [1999] 3 SLR 1 at [30] and [31], and Projection Pte Ltd v The Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd [2001] 2 SLR 399 at [15]. Consideration was less than executory and non-existent. The first plaintiffs riposte, should such a situation come to pass, was to sue them lor. After receiving the e-mail from the first plaintiff, he visited the relevant HP website pages. The non-mistaken partys appreciation that there is no real offer on the contracts literal terms undermines the basis of the objective theory and necessarily imports the lack of subjective intention on the part of the mistaken party. 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. 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. In the recent case of Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd (2005), the Singapore Courts were provided with an opportunity to revisit the law concerning mistakes made in the formation of a contract, in particular, in the context of online contracts. Solicita tu prueba. 133 It is however clear that the law should not take cognisance of bad bargains and misapprehension that do not affect a fundamental or essential aspect of a contractual relationship. 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. 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 was borne out by the case of Chwee Kin Keong and Others v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 71 where an autogenerated email with "Successful Purchase Confirmation" in its subject . This is an inane argument. I must add that these were far from being ordinary printers for home use. Rules and case law pertaining to amendments are premised upon achieving even-handedness in the context of an adversarial system by: (a) ensuring that the parties apprise each other and the court of the essential facts that they intend to rely on in addressing the issues in controversy or dispute; (b) requiring that an amendment should be attended to in the usual course of events, at an early stage of the proceedings, to ensure that no surprise or prejudice is inflicted on or caused to opposing parties; (c) requiring careful consideration whether any amendments sought at a late stage of the proceedings will cause any prejudice to the opposing party. When notified and satisfied that this transaction was successful as well, he placed a final order at 4.21am for ten laser printers on the HP website, charging this to his credit card. No modern authority was cited to me suggesting an intended commercial transaction of this nature could ever fail for want of consideration. Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp. [1955] 2 Q.B. Such errors can be magnified almost instantaneously and may be harder to detect than if made in a face to face transaction or through physical document exchanges. 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