August 4

chwee kin keong v digilandmall high courtchwee kin keong v digilandmall high court

Caveat emptor remains a cornerstone of the law of contract and business relationships. It would be illogical to have different approaches for different product sales over the Internet. This contention is wholly untenable. 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. 30 Tan Wei Teck is 30 years old. This is not a case about bargain hunting which is a time honoured and perfectly legitimate pursuit. 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. Part of the training module included hands-on training with a new template for a Price Mass Upload function. Thus, 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. 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. 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: It is not necessary to prove actual knowledge on the part of the non-mistaken party in order to ground relief, as, In summary therefore, the equitable jurisdiction of the Courts to relieve against mistake in contract comprehends situations where one party, who knows or ought to know of anothers mistake in a fundamental term, remains silent and snaps at the offer, seeking to take advantage of the others mistake. A party may not snap at an obviously mistaken offer: McMaster. To that extent, his evidence that he subsequently dismissed the notion altogether is unacceptable. 73 The sixth plaintiffs orders did not receive matching confirmations from the defendant as his e-mail box was full. 42 Mark Yeow Kinn Keong has a Bachelor of Science (Economics) degree from the University of London. Though the actual price of the laser printer was $3,854, the defendant had on 8January 2003 mistakenly posted the price at $66.00 on its websites. This price was much lower than the actual retail price, and had been posted on the defendant's website by mistake. 22 The exchange between the first plaintiff and Desmond provides an intimate and revealing insight into the first plaintiffs thought process at the material time; the exchange fluctuated between bantering on the one hand, to nothing short of the candid exchange of thoughts on the other, revealing that the first plaintiff was fully aware of the likely existence of an error in pricing. Be that as it may, the fifth plaintiff, soon after he received MsTohs research, shared the information with the second and third plaintiffs. Nor should parties regard pleadings as assuming an amoeba-like nature, susceptible to constant reshaping. 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. Cases of fraud and misrepresentation, and undue influence, are all catered for under other existing and uncontentious equitable rules. On any objective construction, the presumed intention must be that in the context of its confirmatory content, the words call to enquire in the availability portion of the contract related to the timing of the delivery rather than being subject to physical availability of the laser printer or stock. It appears to suggest that even if an offer is snapped up, the contract is not void. This is to be contrasted with: Hare, Inequitable Mistake (2003) 62CLJ 29, Chandler et al, Common Mistake: Theoretical Justification and Remedial Inflexibility [2004] JBL 34. The rules of offer and acceptance are satisfied and the parties are of one mind. Whether the parties have reached agreement on the terms is not determined by evidence of the subjective intention of each party. Cory had chosen this mode of communication; therefore he V K Rajah JC: Para continuar leyendo. Rules of court which are meant to facilitate the conduct of proceedings invariably encapsulate concepts of procedural fairplay. It seems to me that he was trying to tailor his evidence to fit neatly within the legal parameters of the plaintiffs case. Unfortunately, they mistakenly offered the price at so much per pound in place of so much per piece. I cannot accept that. 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. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:33 how many u intend to get? He seemed to suggest that in a number of cases going as far back as Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3App Cas 459, the contracts in issue therein should be treated as only being voidable in equity: see Solle v Butcher at 692, Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 198 at 207 and dicta in Magee v Pennine Insurance Co Ltd [1969] 2 QB 507 at 514 where he opined that: A common mistake, even on a most fundamental matter, does not make a contract void at law: but it makes it voidable in equity. The defendant even had its terms and conditions posted on its website. There are two types of orders relevant: market orders and limit orders. 54 The fourth plaintiff admits that he had entertained the idea at the material time that the price posting could have been an error. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version. Samuel Teo had used all these notional numerals on the training template. June 16, 2022; Posted by why do chavs wear tracksuits; 16 . They are not entitled to the costs of the subsequent brief hearing, for reasons I now deal with summarily. They were selling a HP laser printer and an employee accidently made a mistake as to the price of the printer on their website. The question is what is capable of displacing that apparent agreement. This is approved in a Singaporean case, Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd . Ltd. Yeo Tiong Min* I. 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. These orders were placed at a price of S$66 each, whereas the actual price was S$3,854 each. The CISG has currently been adopted by 95 Contracting States world-wide. 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]. Is this a case of poetic justice? 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. I drew counsels attention to Halsburys Laws of Australia (Butterworths, 1992), vol6 at para 110-5550 which states: A particular class of case which illustrates unilateral mistake as to the terms intended, known to the other party, is that in which an offer which would be very advantageous to the offeree is snapped up by the offeree. 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. The most recent and authoritative pronouncement in this area (per Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers in Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] 3 WLR 1371 at [123]) states: A contract is normally concluded when an offer made by one party (the offeror) is accepted by the party to whom the offer has been made (the offeree). Desmond: 13/01/20 01:40 if any friend got extra printer u want? 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. He in effect forwarded the first plaintiffs e-mail to them. 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. The appellants featured prominently because of the size of their orders. 44 He made his first purchase of ten laser printers at about 2.42am. His own counsels description of him as careful and prudent only serves to corroborate this. Imagine the effect of this negative publicity on your future sales! Indeed, I am satisfied to the contrary. For example, in the Singapore High Court decision of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594 ("Digilandmall"), affirmed on appeal in Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR 502 without considering this particular issue, V K Rajah JC (as he then was) observed, as follows (at [139]): [emphasis added]. 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. To assert that as a rule, leave to amend particulars will be refused, is both illogical and incorrect. They are all well-educated professionals articulate, entrepreneurial and, quite bluntly, streetwise and savvy individuals. Because it was simply a matter of time before the error would inevitably be noticed and the pricing inevitably corrected. 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. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:43 coz the HP laser colour printer sells for at least 3 to 4k outside, Desmond 13/01/20 01:44 from US I heard is about USD 2k, Desmond 13/01/20 01:44 its HP and Laser and Coloured. To confine this exception to instances of fraud would make the concept of unilateral mistake redundant. You may find the status of your order by calling us at (phone number given) Special instructions: Please call to advise delivery date and time. The other school of thought views the approach outlined earlier with considerable scepticism. Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:33 as many as I can! 62 Like the second plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff played a pivotal role in the events leading to these proceedings. 111 This approach appears to have been endorsed by Judith PrakashJ in Ho Seng Lee Construction Pte Ltd v Nian Chuan Construction Pte Ltd [2001] 4 SLR 407 at [84] where it was also accepted that: The test is an objective one based on what a reasonable person would have known in similar circumstances. 19 Later in the morning, at about 4.15am, the fourth plaintiff sent the following e-mail to the first plaintiff, copied to the second plaintiff only: Subject: Re: IMPT HP Colour LaserJet going at only $66!! Case law chwee kin keong v digilandmallcom pte ltd. School Nanyang Technological University; Course Title ACC 1301; Uploaded By saint_huimin. There was no element of surprise or prejudice to the plaintiffs as the points raised had already been developed by the defendant and addressed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs orders were processed by the defendants automated system and confirmation notes were automatically despatched to the plaintiffs within a few minutes. . Computer glitches can cause transmission failures, garbled information or even change the nature of the information transmitted. This cannot be right. Notwithstanding, the defendant does not take issue with this as the sixth plaintiffs orders were received and the appropriate automated responses generated. Added to his own purchases of 760 units, he was effectively responsible for the purchase of 1,090 laser printers. This is an inane argument. Inflexible and mechanical rules lead to injustice. A court will not enforce the plaintiffs purported contracts even if they are not void. The recipient rule appears to be the logical default rule. Sometimes this is made explicit by judges; more often it is the implied basis of the courts decision. 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 text of the e-mail further reinforces the point. This could account for the substantial number of Canadian cases in this area of the law. Case law Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmallcom Pte Ltd suggests that General Rule. Comments Published in English: [2004] 2 SLR 594; [2004] SGHC 71. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. He too affirmed from his searches that the normal price of the laser printer was in the region of US$2,000. Websites often provide a service where online purchases may be made. It is, in large measure, determined by making an objective appraisal of the exchanges between the parties. COOKE v OXLEY (1790) 3 T. R. 653. The contract stands according to the natural meaning of the words used. There were altogether 1,008 purchase orders for the laser printers placed by 784 individuals between 8 and 13January 2003. Basic principles of contract law continue to prevail in contracts made on the Internet. 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. 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 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. There is one important exception to this principle. As this is a critical issue, it is imperative that each of their positions be carefully evaluated. 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. They are not mechanical rules to be applied in a vacuum, devoid of a contextual setting.

Tyco Chattanooga Repair, Chilblain Cream Lloyds Pharmacy, Blueberry Wine Bull Death, Articles C


Tags


chwee kin keong v digilandmall high courtYou may also like

chwee kin keong v digilandmall high courtnatalee holloway mother died

lamont hilly peterson
{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}

chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court