Because it was simply a matter of time before the error would inevitably be noticed and the pricing inevitably corrected. 58 The fifth plaintiff was first informed by the second plaintiff at about 2.30am about cheap laser printers being available for purchase. Altogether he sought to purchase 760 units, the largest number of orders placed by anyone between 8 and 13January 2003. (See for example the approach in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1990] 1AllER 512.) 154 Interestingly, of the 784 persons who placed 1,008 orders for 4,086 laser printers, only these six plaintiffs have attempted to enforce their purported contractual rights. 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. Unilateral Mistake in Contract: Five Degrees of Fusion of - Jstor Computer glitches can cause transmission failures, garbled information or even change the nature of the information transmitted. In a Straits Times report dated 15January 2003 captioned $66 printer error angry customers seek lawyers help, it was reported that the second plaintiff, described as a network marketer had on 13January at about 2.00am stumbled upon a offer he could not believe $66 for a Hewlett Packard laserjet printer that normally sells for $3,854 before GST. The plaintiffs and the defendant later reached an agreement to dispense with any further oral evidence, save for that of Tan Cheng Peng. He was also involved in initiating the Channel NewsAsia report (see [78] and [79] infra). 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. MrTan said: As long as we get out [sic] equitable compensation, we should be able to accept lesser terms, but thats just under consideration as well.. But that, surely, is a question as to where the common law should draw the line; not whether, given the common law rule, it needs to be mitigated by application of some other doctrine. This is in contrast to the English position where after several decades Hartog v Colin & Shields still remains the locus classicus. Being fully conscious of the pivotal nature of this point, I have duly accorded particular attention to the evidence and credibility of each of the plaintiffs. They contended that the entire ICQ conversation, infused with such a jocular tone, should be disregarded. clout_case_500 - UNCITRAL 38 The second plaintiff came across as intelligent and resourceful. CISG-online | CISG-online.org 109 This cautious statement by Chitty needs to be carefully reconsidered in the context of recent developments in this area of law. It is therefore incumbent on the web merchant to protect himself, as he has both the means to do so and knowledge relating to the availability of any product that is being marketed. The other school of thought views the approach outlined earlier with considerable scepticism. Indeed he had conduct of significant phases of these proceedings on behalf of the plaintiffs. 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 cannot be any legitimate expectation of enforcement on the part of the non-mistaken party seeking to take advantage of appearances. 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. 130 It can be persuasively argued that given (a)the historical pedigree of the cases, (b)the dictates of certainty and predictability in the business community and (c)the general acceptance of the existence of distinct common law rules, it is preferable not to conflate these concepts. Leave was also given to the plaintiffs to adduce further evidence, if they so desired. 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. 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. In Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Credit du NordSA [1989] 1 WLR 255 at 266, Lord DenningMRs views were doubted and described as reflecting an individual opinion by SteynJ (as he then was). When pressed as to whether he visited other websites, he said he could not confirm that one way or the other. They have taken into account both the English and Australian authorities in distilling the jurisprudence in this area. If the offeree knows that the offeror does not intend the terms of the offer to be those that the natural meaning of the words would suggest, he cannot, by purporting to accept the offer, bind the offeror to a contract: Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3All ER 566; Smith v Hughes (1871) LR6 QB 597. The programme trigger on that website automatically and instantaneously initiated the insertion of similar contents onto all three websites. The contract stands according to the natural meaning of the words used. As with any normal contract, Internet merchants have to be cautious how they present an advertisement, since this determines whether the advertisement will be construed as an invitation to treat or a unilateral contract. 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. Borneo United Sawmills Sdn Bhd v. MUI Continental Insurance Bhd (Marine insurance - Loss of goods - Claim for loss of goods under Marine Cargo Policy) [2009] 8 CLJ 217. The case involved the sale of printers by the defendant at a price of S$66. 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. HIGH COURT. The most that the court can do in these circumstances is to refuse E [the other party, who wants the contract held void] specific performance, which lies in the discretion of the court and will probably be refused where E has been guilty of some degree of sharp practice. 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. 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. The e-mails sent at 2.34am were also captioned Go load it now! A number of them have very close relationships, with some of them even sharing common business interests. Put another way, that decision seems to indicate that the effect of a unilateral mistake is only to render a contract unenforceable rather than void. , In unilateral mistake, only one of the parties is mistaken. 115 There is a distinct line of cases within the narrow confines of unilateral mistake where the common law has been resolutely disinclined to enforce apparent contracts. I must add that these were far from being ordinary printers for home use. In these proceedings, it appears that the purchases made by the sixth plaintiff were not accompanied by a corresponding receipt of acceptances, as his e-mail inbox was full. Users may find that it may not be as forgiving as more traditional methods of communications. 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 coz they might change it anytime, are all compelling in reflecting his state of mind and awareness that an error had occurred. To confine this exception to instances of fraud would make the concept of unilateral mistake redundant. Where either mutual or unilateral mistake is pleaded, the very existence of agreement is denied. There were no such discussions with potential buyers. 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. But it is difficult to see how that can apply here. The quintessential approach of the law is to preserve rather than to undermine contracts. Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd: A Commentary - SSRN So there is a contract and therefore the defendant is liable in breach of contract. Here are some examples of case citations for other jurisdictions. Despite the general views expressed in Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151CLR 422 on equitable mistake, it seems to be generally accepted in Australia as well, that this class of cases requires special mention and consideration. After the defendant intimated that it would not be delivering the laser printer, he sent an e-mail excoriating it, asserting, inter alia: Myself, and other people who have been disappointed by you decision, will definitely spread word of the companys lack of honour and integrity to everyone we know and all over the internet! 54 The fourth plaintiff admits that he had entertained the idea at the material time that the price posting could have been an error. What is urged is that, owing to a common error as to some fundamental fact, the agreement is robbed of all efficacy. This is an online dating and match-making service. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. The elements of an offer and acceptance are, 139 Next, the defendant contends that no consideration passed from the plaintiffs to them. There was a promise to pay made by the plaintiffs in exchange for the delivery of the requisite laser printers. The question is what is capable of displacing that apparent agreement. The leading Canadian decision in this area is the case of McMaster University v Wilchar Construction Ltd (1971) 22DLR(3d) 9 which, incidentally, was cited with approval by the Australian High Court in Taylor v Johnson. The defendant has expressly pleaded unilateral mistake. Chwee Kin Keong decision - Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Digilandmall Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594; - Studocu Caso chwee kin keong and others digilandmall.com pte ltd slr sghc 71 suit no: suit decision 12 apr 2004 date: court: coram: counsel: high court rajah jc tan sok IgnorarExperimenta 'Pergunta a um Especialista' Pergunta a um especialista 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
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 . From time to time they communicate with each other via the Internet and the short messaging system (sms). 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. [2006] SGHC 222 - eLitigation Clout issue 43. 55 The fourth plaintiff is technologically savvy and runs an Internet business with the second plaintiff. Transactions over websites are almost invariably instantaneous and/or interactive. 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. Failure to do so could also result in calamitous repercussions. That said, it also offers new avenues of evidential proof offering intimate insights into realtime thought processes and reactions. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:17 what hp online?? It can be noted, however, that while s15 of the ETA appears to be inclined in favour of the receipt rule, commentaries indicate that it is not intended to affect substantive law. 4, 1971, p. 331. Why? He graduated from NTU as a bachelor of business studies, specialising in financial analysis. 327. He claims visiting, inter alia, the Epinions and Hardwarezone websites, and though it appears that there was at the material time a discussion thread on the error on the Hardwarezone website, the fourth plaintiff denied having seen this. SingletonJ held at 568: The offer was wrongly expressed, and the defendants by their evidence, and by the correspondence, have satisfied me that the plaintiff could not reasonably have supposed that that offer contained the offerers real intention. This e-mail was sent only, 29 The first plaintiff struck me as an opportunistic entrepreneur. 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!! 3. Sometimes this is made explicit by judges; more often it is the implied basis of the courts decision. 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. A typical but not essential defining characteristic of conduct of this nature is the haste or urgency with which the non-mistaken party seeks to conclude a contract; the haste is induced by a latent anxiety that the mistaken party may learn of the error and as a result correct the error or change its mind about entering into the contract. Court reference 202 of 2003. In common mistake, both parties make the same mistake. 84 It is axiomatic 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 proceedings has been completed. ! with its importance set at high. In the absence of proper and full arguments on the issue of which rule is to be preferred, I do not think it is appropriate for me to give any definitive views in these proceedings on this very important issue. There could be different considerations. 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. Having noted all this, I am nevertheless inclined towards the views expressed in the Great Peace Shipping case for the reasons articulated by Lord PhillipsMR. Others do not. In effect the Internet conveniently integrates into a single screen traditional advertising, catalogues, shop displays/windows and physical shopping. Consideration was less than executory and non-existent. This is one of the first prominent case that deals with the issue of web based contract. He holds an accounting degree from NTU. Errors may incur wholly unexpected, and sometimes untoward, consequences as these proceedings so amply demonstrate. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:24 just ordered 3 colour lazer printer for S$66.00 each. The common law has drawn the line in Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. It presents a textbook example of offer and acceptance. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version. 132 It can be seen from this brief excursus into the law of mistake that this is an abstruse area. In the eyes of Singapore law, purported contracts entered into in similar circumstances are void ab initio. Unilateral mistake in contracts - L'Avocat Law 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. This is a matter perhaps best left to law reform rather than to incremental judge-made law which may sow the seeds of confusion and harvest the returns of uncertainty. 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. He is currently self-employed and is intimately involved in the multi-level marketing sales of aromatherapy products under the Bel-Air label. Digilandmall - 502 SINGAPORE LAW REPORTS (REISSUE) [2005] 1 SLR(R The essential point remains: will prejudice be caused and/or are any policy considerations called into play. How could one seek to calculate the profit margin before finding out the true market price of the laser printer? 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. Chwee Kin Keong and Others v Pte Ltd PDF fileChwee Kin 74 Under product description on each webpage, instead of the actual description of the laser printer which in this case should have been HP9660A Color LaserJet 4600, only the numerals 55 appeared: this was the result of Samuel Teos earlier inadvertent input. As such, I would strongly appeal to you to reconsider your decision. Rules of court which are meant to facilitate the conduct of proceedings invariably encapsulate concepts of procedural fairplay. 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?? 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 Part of the training module included hands-on training with a new template for a Price Mass Upload function. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:33 how many u intend to get? The rationale for this is that a court will not sanction a contract where there is no, 150 The plaintiffs have contended that this court ought to follow the decision in, A thread runs through our contract law that effect must be given to, 152 This view has also found support in the Singapore context. Homestead Assets Sdn Bhd v. Contramec . 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. The web page entitled checkout order confirmation had a notation stating the earliest date on which we can deliver all the products to you is based on the longest estimated time of stock availability plus the delivery lead time. Chwee KIN Keong AND Others v Digilandmall.COM PTE LTD [2004 ] SGHC 71 [emphasis added]. This, by an uncanny coincidence, was the same person whom he had intended to consult in the resale of the laser printers a topic that he had discussed with the second plaintiff earlier that morning. The payment mode selected by the third plaintiff was cash on delivery. I must add that I did not really think this was necessary and subsequent events confirmed my perception. Both parties displayed a considerable amount of imagination in dealing with them. Notwithstanding some real differences with posting, it could be argued cogently that the postal rule should apply to e-mail acceptances; in other words, that the acceptance is made the instant the offer is sent. 89 In the circumstances, I had little hesitation in allowing the amendments sought by the defendant. By their own admission, they made Internet searches through various search engines to ascertain the profits they could make. The e-mail was given a high importance priority and captioned go load it now!!. chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court It is not in dispute that the defendant made a genuine error. Doctrine and fairness in the law of contract - Cambridge Core Despite the general views expressed in. He was also a partner in what is described as a printing business. 54 The fourth plaintiff admits that he had entertained the idea at the material time that the price posting could have been an error. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] - YouTube 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" . 11 The single most controversial issue in these proceedings is the knowledge possessed and/or belief entertained by each of the plaintiffs when they entered into each of the transactions for the purchase of the laser printers. 156 The plaintiffs claims are dismissed. Not all one-sided transactions or bargains are improper. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? He worked for a short period in the IT Project Development department of the Standard Chartered Bank, where he became acquainted with the first plaintiff. CLARK, B. 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. The recipient rule appears to be the logical default rule. 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. While it is possible that the reporters could have exercised some latitude in penning the reports, they would in essence be conveying, at the very least, summaries and impressions of their interviews with the second, third and fifth plaintiffs. At 4.16am he placed another order for one laser printer, by credit card, on the HP website. 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. Basic principles of contract law continue to prevail in contracts made on the Internet. Just as the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 was needed to temper the effect of the common law doctrine of frustration, so there is scope for legislation to give greater flexibility to our law of mistake than the common law allows. In the light of that consideration we can see no way that Solle v Butcher can stand with Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. The unconstrained exchange that followed between the two is both revealing and compelling. This e-mail was sent only after the first plaintiff had made his own Internet searches on the pricing of the laser printer. The rigour in limiting this scope is also critical to protect innocent third party rights that may have been acquired directly or indirectly. A court will not enforce the plaintiffs purported contracts even if they are not void. This is without basis. 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. 2 Who is correct? 18 He said he later conducted some searches using the Google search engine and ascertained that the laser printer could be sold at about US$1,300 in certain markets. 95 The known availability of stock could be an important distinguishing factor between a physical sale and an Internet transaction. 36 The second plaintiff was the key person and pivotal in the entire chain of events. In such cases, it would be unconscionable to enforce the bargain and equity will set aside the contract. The effect of Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 is not to supplement or mitigate the common law: it is to say that Bell v Lever Bros Ltd was wrongly decided. 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. 7 At about 3.36pm, Samuel Teo, an employee of DIL, inadvertently uploaded the contents of the training template onto the Digiland commerce website operated by DIL, in place of the test website allocated for the training. [2005] SGCA 2 - eLitigation Whether the parties have reached agreement on the terms is not determined by evidence of the subjective intention of each party. 40 When the fourth plaintiff responded to the first plaintiffs mass e-mail, he copied his response to the second plaintiff. Once again, however, this does not deprive E of his legal remedies; nor does it avail V if he wishes to recover property which he may have transferred under the contract. COOKE v OXLEY (1790) 3 T. R. 653. The rigour in limiting this scope is also critical to protect innocent third party rights that may have been acquired directly or indirectly. It has been pointed out that the pedigree of these decisions is dubious, to say the least (see [128] and [129] infra). 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. The fact that the acceptance was automatically generated by a computer software cannot in any manner exonerate the defendant from responsibility. With reference to the judgement, the case explores pricing mistakes by online stores. Consideration was less than executory and non-existent. 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. Offer and acceptances have to reach an intended recipient to be efective. 29 The first plaintiff struck me as an opportunistic entrepreneur. While this is the general principle for shop displays, it is open to a merchant to offer by way of an advertisement the mechanics of a unilateral or bilateral contract. He received this information through an sms message. Normally, however, the task involves no more than an objective analysis of the words used by the parties. In the context of the present proceedings, the extra-judicial observations of Lord Steyn in Contract Law: Fulfilling the Reasonable Expectations of Honest Men (1997) 113LQR 433 at 433 are particularly apposite: A thread runs through our contract law that effect must be given to reasonable expectations of honest men. It is not necessary to prove actual knowledge on the part of the non-mistaken party in order to ground relief, as in this context one is taken to have known what would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the light of the surrounding circumstances: Hartog v Colin and Shields [1939] AllER 566 (KBD); McMaster University; Stepps Investments, supra; Taylor, supra.