Administration law is the actions made by a government, which adversely affects an individual. 27-30 January; 2-6, 9 February; 13 March; 12 April 2004 . This is an inane argument. - Rebutting presumption: "The question [whether or not there is a binding contract] must depend on the The marrow of contractual relationships should be the parties intention to create a legal relationship. When pressed why he asked MsToh to do this research, the fifth plaintiffs response was unsatisfactory. The law may not imply a condition precedent as to the availability of stock simply to bail out an Internet merchant from a bad bargain, 104 The creases over the theoretical approach to adopt in determining the existence of contracts have for some time now been decisively ironed out in favour of the objective theory. 61 The fifth plaintiff placed an order for 100 laser printers at about 3.51am. ThompsonJ of the Ontario High Court applied Hartog v Colin & Shields ([115] supra) and held that the parties were not ad idem and found that no contract had been formed. I would not however invariably equate the required conduct with fraud. Homestead Assets Sdn Bhd v. Contramec . 98 Once an offer is sent over the Internet, the sender loses control over the route and delivery time of the message. - See also Balfour v. Balfour (1919). 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. June Proctor, 1997, p. 13. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Normally the contract is only concluded when the acceptance is communicated by the offeree to the offeror. Before dealing with the point of real substance, it is appropriate to briefly deal with two of the less meritorious contentions advanced. 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. The notation in the checkout-order confirmation further confirmed that the defendants concern was with the delivery time rather than with qualifying its obligation by reference to stock availability as a condition precedent. He received this information through an sms message. Who bears the risk of such mistakes? Slade, in a well reasoned article written not long after, 128 The most significant judicial pronouncement supporting this view emanates from the recent English Court of Appeal in, Thus the premise of the equitys intrusion into the effects of the common law is that the common law rule in question is seen in the particular case to work injustice, and for some reason the common law cannot cure itself. There are in this connection two schools of thought. 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. 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. 91 There is no real conundrum as to whether contractual principles apply to Internet contracts. CISG-online is a research platform dedicated to the law and practice of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods adopted in Vienna on 11 April 1980 (CISG), as well as related areas of international commercial 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. In the final stage of the process, after the payment mode was indicated, each of the plaintiffs was notified successful transaction your order and payment transaction has been processed. Mutual promises, by all accounts, on the basis of existing case law, more than amply constitute consideration. The first issue dealt with references made by the plaintiffs to certain embargoed material. 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. Nor could he satisfactorily explain why he initially made the Internet searches to ensure the offer was genuine. As part of its business, it operates a website owned by Hewlett Packard (HP) at http://www.buyhp.com.sg (the HP website) where only HP products are sold. It appears to suggest that even if an offer is snapped up, the contract is not void. 37 The second plaintiff was insistent in his evidence that there was no communication from the first plaintiff alerting him to the likely existence of the mistake; he contends the first plaintiff merely apprised him of a good deal and sent him the weblink to the HP website. He said that he wanted to be sure that the offer on the HP website was genuine. I was neither impressed nor convinced. 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. 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. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594; [2004] SGHC 71. 34 He also visited the Digilandmall website to familiarise himself with their standard terms and conditions. The rigour in limiting this scope is also critical to protect innocent third party rights that may have been acquired directly or indirectly. 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. Furthermore, unlike a fax or a telephone call, it is not instantaneous. 125 The principal source of this view has been Lord DenningMR. 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. . Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd | India Contract Law 33 After his first order, the second plaintiff contacted the fourth and fifth plaintiffs informing them about the laser printers. Errors may incur wholly unexpected, and sometimes untoward, consequences as these proceedings so amply demonstrate. Ltd} has the makings of a student's classic for several rea sons: it presents a textbook example of offer and acceptance; it is set in the context After the second plaintiff read out some of the terms and conditions he had found, the fifth plaintiff told him that the contract was binding upon a successful purchase order being received. Consideration was less than executory and non-existent. 65 He was particularly circumspect in recounting his communications with the second plaintiff. V K Rajah JC: Para continuar leyendo. Given its global reach and ever changing technological advancements, Internet usage will pose a myriad of issues for resolution. Some of the plaintiffs appeared rather coy or ignorant in this regard but I did not find their performance believable. 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. The answer on the authorities is a mistake by one party of which the other, 111 This approach appears to have been endorsed by Judith PrakashJ in, 114 For good measure, I should allude that the plaintiffs in their written submissions concede that in order to establish that mistake is operative at common law, the defendant has to show in this instant case that the plaintiffs each had, 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. They are tainted and unenforceable. 111 In Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502 ("Chwee Kin Keong"), this court said at [101]: Under O 20 r 5(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed), the court may grant leave to amend a pleading at any stage of the proceedings. This is not a case about bargain hunting which is a time honoured and perfectly legitimate pursuit. 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. While a court of law does not sit as a court of commercial morality, it cannot lose sight of this central objective of contract law. It may be impractical and unjust to demand that the mistaken party actually prove the knowledge of a substantial number of people who effect numerous purchases. There is constant tension in our legal system to accommodate the Janus-like considerations of fairness and finality. He has common business interests with the first, third and fourth plaintiffs. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. 41 The second plaintiff seems to have redefined the facts to achieve his objective in these proceedings. 40 When the fourth plaintiff responded to the first plaintiffs mass e-mail, he copied his response to the second plaintiff. [emphasis added]. 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. 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. The defendant also sells HP products on its own website at http://www.digiland.com (the Digilandmall website). The fact that it may have been negligent is not a relevant factor in these proceedings. The appellants featured prominently because of the size of their orders. Mistakes that negative consent do not inexorably result in contracts being declared void. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. Case Nos: Suit 202/2003/E (for the first instance), CA/30/2004 (for the appeal) in the High Court of Singapore (at first instance), Singapore Court of Appeal. As a lawyer, he appears to have been indispensable in the plaintiffs attempts to hold the defendant to the bargain. It can however be observed that in mass mistake cases, even when there is no direct evidence as in these proceedings, the court could be prepared to pragmatically assume actual or deemed knowledge of the manifest mistake. I invited both parties to indicate if they wished to amend their pleadings. 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. There is no question, however, that he placed the orders, that these orders were received by the HP website and that the same automated response sent to the other plaintiffs was sent out to him. 55 The fourth plaintiff is technologically savvy and runs an Internet business with the second plaintiff. Certain Internet service providers provide the technology to inform a sender that a message has not been properly routed. 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). 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. The payment mode opted for was cash on delivery. His communications with the fifth plaintiff, a lawyer, on the efficacy of the terms and conditions also lead to the ineluctable conclusion that he harboured anxieties whether this astoundingly good deal would be honoured when the error was discovered. This is clearly a mistake as they could not possible be sold for an amount that in a commercial situation. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall Pte Ltd The defendant, Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, were an online IT company that sold related software and hardware from Singapore. As the Channel NewsAsia report so succinctly summarised they saw a great opportunity and grabbed it. There is one important exception to this principle. He worked in an accounting firm, Ernst and Young, for three years. There are many different shades of sharp practice or impropriety. They want Digiland to honour the deal or at least to compensate them. The defendants wanted to sell some hare skins to the plaintiffs. To assert that as a rule, leave to amend particulars will be refused, is both illogical and incorrect. 3. 122 For now it appears that a mistaken party can have two bites at the cherry. 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. The first and fifth appellants each ordered a hundred printers, while the other appellants ordered more than a hundred printers each. 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 Notwithstanding, the defendant does not take issue with this as the sixth plaintiffs orders were received and the appropriate automated responses generated. After receiving the e-mail from the first plaintiff, he visited the relevant HP website pages. In such cases, it would be unconscionable to enforce the bargain and equity will set aside the contract, 26 I respectfully agree with the reasoning of ShawJ in. The recipients of this e-mail included the second, fourth, fifth plaintiffs and Tan Cheng Peng, the third plaintiffs girlfriend. 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. I must add that I did not really think this was necessary and subsequent events confirmed my perception. 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. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. Case Nos: Suit 202/2003/E (for the first instance), CA/30/2004 (for the appeal) in the High Court of Singapore (at first instance), Singapore Court of Appeal. 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. The essence of snapping up lies in taking advantage of a known or perceived error in circumstances which ineluctably suggest knowledge of the error. After all, what would he do with 100 obsolete commercial laser printers? The question is what is capable of displacing that apparent agreement. The law of mistake has generated its own genre of mistakes and obfuscation. 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. 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. [emphasis added]. The essence is not so much in the nature of the amendment but rather in the consequences flowing from any amendment to the pleadings. 68 Yeow Kinn Oei is 29 years old and the brother of the third plaintiff. I agree that this exception should be kept within a very narrow compass. I accept that this is capable of including circumstances in which a person refrains from or simply fails to make enquiries for which the situation reasonably calls and which would have led to discovery of the mistake. Kiat Boon, Daniel SENG - NUS Law This e-mail was sent only, 29 The first plaintiff struck me as an opportunistic entrepreneur. 57 Malcolm Tan is 30 years old and a practising advocate and solicitor. This can result from human interphasing, machine error or a combination of such factors. 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. He graduated from NTU as a bachelor of business studies, specialising in financial analysis. In the eyes of Singapore law, purported contracts entered into in similar circumstances are void ab initio. Acceptance sent through email; is the postal rule applicable? Court Determines if There's a Contract Existence - LawTeacher.net Date of Verdicts: 12 April 2004, 13 January 2005. The sender will usually receive a prompt response. (PDF) Unilateral Mistake in Contract: Five Degrees of - ResearchGate In the light of that consideration we can see no way that Solle v Butcher can stand with Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. 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. 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. This rationalised the law and gives the court a broad discretion to fashion the applicable relief. The modern approach in contract law requires very little to find the existence of consideration. 14 The first, second and fourth plaintiffs became acquainted with each other when they studied at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU). 2. 85 Having stated the general rule, it is imperative that the rationale underlying this approach be understood. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR(R) 594, Rajah JC (as . 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. He is also described as the sole proprietor and manager of two other businesses that provide business support and consultancy. . chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court The first plaintiffs riposte, should such a situation come to pass, was to sue them lor. LOW, Kelvin Fatt Kin. Added to his own purchases of 760 units, he was effectively responsible for the purchase of 1,090 laser printers. 47 Not content with making his own purchases, he woke up his brother and transacted 330 units on his behalf. 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. Section13 of the ETA deems that a message by a partys automated computer system originates from the party itself. He claimed that when he could not find the identical model on the US HP website he had assumed initially that the laser printer might be obsolete and was therefore being off-loaded cheaply at $66. 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. The issue in this case was whether the pricing was a mistake and if the contract would be fulfilled. 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. A steady stream of decisions from common law courts indicate a measured but nevertheless distinctly incremental willingness to extend the scope of the exception to not just actual knowledge, but deemed or constructive knowledge as well. To that extent, his evidence that he subsequently dismissed the notion altogether is unacceptable. Pages 74 Ratings 100% (5) 5 out of 5 people found this document helpful; It was the defendants computer system. In terms of chronological sequence, the initial page accessed was the shopping cart, followed by checkout-order . Case law chwee kin keong v digilandmallcom pte ltd. School Nanyang Technological University; Course Title ACC 1301; Uploaded By saint_huimin. He also claimed to have talked to buyers in the market about reselling the laser printers and that the failure to procure the units would tarnish his reputation. These statements are not to be interpreted as a clarion call to rewrite commercial agreements because of a partys unreasonable or ignoble behaviour. The payment mode opted for was cash on delivery. 156 The plaintiffs claims are dismissed. As this is a critical issue, it is imperative that each of their positions be carefully evaluated. The sixth plaintiff is precluded from asserting his ignorance. The e-mails had all the characteristics of an unequivocal acceptance. The plaintiffs and the defendant later reached an agreement to dispense with any further oral evidence, save for that of Tan Cheng Peng. No rights can pass to third parties. (See for example the approach in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1990] 1AllER 512.) HIGH COURT. He also participates in multi-level marketing of Bel-Air aromatherapy products. Altogether, the second plaintiff purchased 180 units, opting for cash on delivery as the payment mode. It was held that the contract between the parties was void. 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. 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. I find it inconceivable, to say the least, that the fifth plaintiff would have placed an order for 100 laser printers without the conviction that it was in fact a current market model with a real and substantial resale value. VKR a j a hJ C. 27-30 January; 2-6, 9 February; 13 March; 12 April 2004. In a, WHILE surfing the Net at about 2am on Monday, MrTan Wei Teck stumbled upon an offer, 82 The plaintiffs strenuously opposed the defendants amendments principally on the ground it was made at a late juncture. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. This short but highly significant e-mail reads: Subject: IMPT HP Colour LaserJet going at only $66!! The defendants argued this pricing was a unilateral mistake and that the complainants took advantage of this. 42 Mark Yeow Kinn Keong has a Bachelor of Science (Economics) degree from the University of London. The transcript states that the third and the fifth plaintiffs saw a great opportunity and grabbed it. This is in contrast to the English position where after several decades, 125 The principal source of this view has been Lord DenningMR. MrYeow said: After we ordered, the very next day, some of us have even gone up to talk to buyers in the market about the units. The issue could be critical where third party rights are in issue as in Shogun. Indeed, the time may have come for the common law to shed the pretence of searching for consideration to uphold commercial contracts. 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. In its pleaded case, the defendant asserts that the automated e-mail responses it sent out in the early hours of 13January 2003 did not confirm that stock of the laser printers were available and would be delivered. 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. 21 The first plaintiff must have realised at the outset that he would have to explain with a certain measure of credibility the purport and significance of all his Internet communications between 1.00am and 3.00am on 13January 2003. 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. It was found that the plaintiffs must have known or realised that the offer did not express the true intention of the defendants.

George Merritt Obituary, Michelle Woods Role On Burn Notice, Steve Sarkisian New Wife Loreal Smith, Is Aep Disconnecting Service, Did Jill Washburn Leave Fox 2 News, Articles C