In the light of that consideration we can see no way that Solle v Butcher can stand with Bell v Lever Bros Ltd. I note that Chitty at para5-089, fn25 sagely opines that Taylor v Johnson does not represent English law, at least, where the other party knows that a mistake has been made. He appeared to be consummately familiar with Internet practices and was forced to concede that he thought it was weird and unusual when he saw the number 55 on the relevant webpages in place of the actual product description. Caveat emptor remains a cornerstone of the law of contract and business relationships. The first issue dealt with references made by the plaintiffs to certain embargoed material. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:43 yeah man whats the original price? [2005] 1 SLR (R) Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd 507 printers. 120 The widening of jurisdiction to embrace a broad equitable jurisdiction could well encourage litigious behaviour and promote uncertainty. This thread helps to rationalise the development of the common law but ought not to be viewed as supporting the existence of a general test of commercial morality tantamount to the test of unconscionability invoked by equity. In Canada, the latter suffices. Solicita tu prueba. The amounts ordered and the hurried and hasty manner in which the orders were executed are of cardinal importance. Having expressed my views on consideration, I should also add for good measure that, in any event, there is ample consideration. 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. Has an agreement been reached or not? 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 actual or constructive knowledge of the mistaken pricing. The E-Mail Acceptance Rule. They are not entitled to the costs of the subsequent brief hearing, for reasons I now deal with summarily. Abstract The decision of V.K. I categorically reject their evidence in so far as it attempts to hermetically compartmentalise their knowledge and discussions. The Canadian and Australian cases have moved along with the eddies of unconscionability. Alternatively, knowledge may be readily inferred from what would be regarded as commonly known or notorious facts in the context of the transaction. CLARK, B. It had consciously not inserted any limits to the number of products a buyer could purchase again, quite clearly, to solicit more business. They then argue that as equitable defences have not been pleaded, the court has no alternative but to allow the claim. 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. 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. A real product number HP9660A was inserted in the new template as the prototype for which fictional prices were to be changed on the three relevant websites. Their conduct in pursuing their claims cannot by any stretch of the imagination be characterised as having the slightest colour of being legitimate regardless of whether the subjective or objective theories are applied and whether common law or equity is applied in adjudicating this matter. The issue in this case was whether the pricing was a mistake and if the contract would be fulfilled. Despite the general views expressed in. No rights can pass to third parties. From time to time there will be cases where this is an overriding consideration. Upon accessing the Digilandmall website and confirming that the printer was offered there at $66 as well, he placed a further order for 25 laser printers through that website at about 3.29am. 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. Indeed, I am satisfied to the contrary. The law of agency and that pertaining to the formation of contracts are expressly recognised in s13(8) of the ETA as continuing to apply to electronic transactions. That is sufficient in these circumstances. Rather, in my opinion, constructive knowledge alone will suffice to invoke equitys conscience. He classifies mistake in the following manner at 386: If attention is fixed merely on the factual situations, there are three possible types of mistake: common, mutual and unilateral. When, however, the cases provoked by these factual situations are analysed, they will be seen to fall, not into three, but only two distinct legal categories. 86 In cases where the facts raised in the proposed amendments have been addressed during the evidence and submissions and, particularly, where the opposing side has also had an opportunity to address the very same points, there can hardly ever be any real prejudice. Why? Indeed, upon re-examination, he attempted to distance himself from the portion of his affidavit suggesting that the possibility of a genuine mistake had crossed his mind after the first transaction. 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. 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. 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. Phang, Controversy in Common Mistake [2003] Conv 247; Reynolds, Reconsider the Contract Textbooks (2003) 119LQR 177. The only court judgement on the theme is Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, a judgement of the Singapore High Court. The modern approach in contract law requires very little to find the existence of consideration. He sought to amend his affidavit and testified that if the references in his affidavit implied the acknowledgement of a mistake, they were formulated not by him but by his previous solicitors and were incorrect. 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. 57 Malcolm Tan is 30 years old and a practising advocate and solicitor. The recipient rule is therefore more convenient and relevant in the context of both instantaneous or near instantaneous communications. 32 Satisfied with his enquiries in relation to the printer model, he returned to the HP website and placed an order for 100 laser printers at about 2.23am. By their own admission, they made Internet searches through various search engines to ascertain the profits they could make. This was summarily resolved. A court is not likely to take a sympathetic view of such manner of amendment. 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. Samuel Teo had used all these notional numerals on the training template. 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. Date of Verdicts: 12 April 2004, 13 January 2005. 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 V K Rajah JC: Para continuar leyendo. Therefore, administrative law encompasses Is the Right to Privacy Adequately Protected? The plaintiffs refute that the error exonerates the defendant; they insist that a concluded contract is sacrosanct and must be honoured. Often the essence of good business is the use of superior knowledge. This e-mail was sent only, 29 The first plaintiff struck me as an opportunistic entrepreneur. 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. His counsel contends that the idea the price was a mistake never arose in the second plaintiffs mind; he was preoccupied with thinking about the profit potential of the laser printers. I hope by the time you see this email, the price is still at S$66.00 coz they might change it anytime. 42 Mark Yeow Kinn Keong has a Bachelor of Science (Economics) degree from the University of London. 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 placed his first order for 50 units at about 2.58am, and his second order for another 50 units at 3.22am, again through the HP website. There was also no indication that the product was being sold on promotion. 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, a fortiori in the sale of information and probably services, as the same constraints as to availability and supply may not usually apply to such sales. The transcript states that the third and the fifth plaintiffs saw a great opportunity and grabbed it. Date of Verdicts: 12 April 2004, 13 January 2005. 98 Once an offer is sent over the Internet, the sender loses control over the route and delivery time of the message. 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. Promotions would be indicated by a P inside a yellow circle next to the product in question. He is currently self-employed and is intimately involved in the multi-level marketing sales of aromatherapy products under the Bel-Air label. It is germane to observe that none of the cases purporting to follow Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 have with any degree of clarity defined the parameters of equitable mistake in contradistinction to a common law mistake. They have a common interest in bridge and this helped to cement their friendship. The later the amendment, the greater the adverse consequences. Normally the contract is only concluded when the acceptance is communicated by the offeree to the offeror. 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. 87 It appeared to me that the extract from Singapore Civil Procedure 2003 relied on by the plaintiffs was blindly lifted from earlier editions of the English White Book without any consideration as to how it dovetails with the present procedural climate. But it is difficult to see how that can apply here. In short, where does the justice reside? 2. He also participates in multi-level marketing of Bel-Air aromatherapy products. 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. In support of the latter it might be argued that unlike a posting, e-mail communication takes place in a relatively short time frame. Computer glitches can cause transmission failures, garbled information or even change the nature of the information transmitted. The first, second and third plaintiffs have been friends for a long time and are bound by common business interests. Mistakes that negative consent do not inexorably result in contracts being declared void. This is approved in a Singaporean case, Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd . In Chwee Kin Keong v . This is much closer to the truth than the picture he has tried to paint in these proceedings. He was amicus curiae to the Court of Appeal of Singapore in the case of Chwee Kin Keong & Ors v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, the leading Singapore case on unilateral mistake in the digital environment. In addition, Tan Cheng Peng, the girlfriend and business associate of the third plaintiff, filed an affidavit detailing her communications with him. 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, 52 He then called the second plaintiff on his handphone and informed him that he intended to purchase 50 laser printers. 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 answer on the authorities is a mistake by one party of which the other knew or ought reasonably to have known. One of the few cases on electronic contract formation in Singapore was Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall. I have found that the plaintiffs had at all material times knowledge of or, at the very least, a real belief that an error had been made by the defendant in the price posting. 132 It can be seen from this brief excursus into the law of mistake that this is an abstruse area. Certainly, none of them had ever been induced to conduct transactions on such a scale on the Internet for any product, let alone sophisticated commercial laser printers. 47 Not content with making his own purchases, he woke up his brother and transacted 330 units on his behalf. 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. The object of the exercise is to determine what each party intended, or must be deemed to have intended. He is currently self-employed and is intimately involved in the multi-level marketing sales of aromatherapy products under the Bel-Air label. Clout issue 43. Mutual promises, by all accounts, on the basis of existing case law, more than amply constitute consideration. Chwee Kin K eong and others . They have taken into account both the English and Australian authorities in distilling the jurisprudence in this area. 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. 27-30 January; 2-6, 9 February; 13 March; 12 April 2004 . 53 He claimed that seeing the same price on the Digilandmall website confirmed his view that there had been no mistake. There cannot be any legitimate expectation of enforcement on the part of the non-mistaken party seeking to take advantage of appearances. 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. v . 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. Pages 74 Ratings 100% (5) 5 out of 5 people found this document helpful; The argument is that, despite appearances, there is no real correspondence of offer and acceptance and that therefore the transaction must necessarily be void. Chwee Kin Keong and others v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. [2004] SGHC 71. 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. By their own admission, they made Internet searches through various search engines to ascertain the profits they could make. Market orders: order to be executed immediately at the best available price. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. 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 elements of an offer and acceptance are ex facie satisfied in every transaction asserted in the plaintiffs claims. They proceeded to file their amendments to the statement of claim as if leave had already been given. 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. After referring to a series of leading cases, including the often quoted decision of ThomsonJ in McMaster University v Wilchar Construction Ltd (1971), 22DLR(3d) 9 (Ont HCJ), Chief Justice McLachlin said at p37: One circumstance falling clearly within the equitable jurisdiction of the Court to relieve against mistake is that where one party, knowing of the others mistake as to the terms of an offer, remains silent and concludes a contract on the mistaken terms: Solle, supra; Belle River Community Arena v WJC Kaufman Co (1978), 20OR(2d) 447, 4 BLR 231, 87DLR(3d) 761 (CA). Soon after, the second, third and fifth plaintiffs took their claims to the media. Plaintiffs counsel indicated that they wanted to further particularise the sixth plaintiffs purchase orders. There are, however, other sound reasons to argue against such a rule in favour of the recipient rule. 122 For now it appears that a mistaken party can have two bites at the cherry. The complainants had ordered over 100 printers each at this price. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! 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. June 16, 2022; Posted by why do chavs wear tracksuits; 16 . Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! 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 most recent and authoritative pronouncement in this area (. Unilateral Mistake at . He said that he wanted to be sure that the offer on the HP website was genuine. 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. The mere fact that they suddenly engage in predatory and atypical behaviour may in itself be telling. 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. 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. What is urged is that, owing to a common error as to some fundamental fact, the agreement is robbed of all efficacy. They assumed that to be the position. Certainty in commercial transactions should not be trifled with, as this will inevitably affect how commercial and business exchanges are respected and effected. In the eyes of Singapore law, purported contracts entered into in similar circumstances are void ab initio. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:47 u make me greedy, Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:47 ok lor if you insist . The essence is not so much in the nature of the amendment but rather in the consequences flowing from any amendment to the pleadings. In this case, Defendant was selling IT products over internet in Singapore. I granted leave to both parties to file applications to amend the pleadings. In doing so, they appear to have also conflated equitable and common law concepts. The affidavits did not add anything new. It is axiomatic that normal contractual principles apply but the contractual permutations will obviously be sometimes more complex and spread over a greater magnitude of transactions. If anything, certain portions of the affidavits raised even more doubts about the plaintiffs credibility. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. It is unequivocally unethical conduct tantamount to sharp practice. The same view is echoed in Halsburys Laws of Singapore vol7 (Butterworths Asia, 2000) at [80.164]. The neutral citation of the case Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd is as follows: This citation tells us that this was the 71st case in 2004 decided in the Singapore High Court. These statements are not to be interpreted as a clarion call to rewrite commercial agreements because of a partys unreasonable or ignoble behaviour. 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. This constituted more than a quarter of the total number of laser printers ordered. The court found that parties when . As a lawyer, he appears to have been indispensable in the plaintiffs attempts to hold the defendant to the bargain. The payment mode opted for was cash on delivery. There must be consensus ad idem. There was no satisfactory reason for the genesis of this e-mail (see [67] infra). 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. The unusual product description of 55 which the fourth plaintiff alone reluctantly acknowledged as weird and unusual would have been a red light signal that an error had occurred. It cannot also be seriously argued that there was no intention to enter into a legal relationship. The contract stands according to the natural meaning of the words used. The rigour in limiting this scope is also critical to protect innocent third party rights that may have been acquired directly or indirectly. Websites often provide a service where online purchases may be made. 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. Amendments after conclusion of submissions. 48 The third plaintiff annexed to his affidavit the transcript of the Channel NewsAsia report where he was quoted. When pressed as to whether he visited other websites, he said he could not confirm that one way or the other. Both parties expressed that they wished to effect amendments to mirror evidence that had been adduced in the proceedings. It is not in dispute that the defendant made a genuine error. 40 When the fourth plaintiff responded to the first plaintiffs mass e-mail, he copied his response to the second plaintiff. 33 See the Singapore Court of Appeal decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd[2005] 1 SLR 502 (noted by Yeo, TM ' Great Peace: a distant disturbance ' (2005) 121 Law Quarterly Review 393 Google Scholar; KFK Low 'Unilateral mistake at common law and in equity' [2005] Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 423; and PW . - Rebutting presumption: "The question [whether or not there is a binding contract] must depend on the Both parties displayed a considerable amount of imagination in dealing with them. 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. Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004 . 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 claimed that he had not asked her to do the research and that she had done it independently. This can be before or during the trial, or after judgment or on appeal. Landmark decision on unilateral mistake of fact in respect of the price of product listed on an online mall and the purchases made thereon .