. Palm tree justice will only serve to inject uncertainty into the law. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:24 just ordered 3 colour lazer printer for S$66.00 each. If there appears to be no reasonable explanation for an absurd price discrepancy, it is axiomatic that any hasty conduct, such as the plaintiffs, in snapping up products, should be punctiliously scrutinised and dissected. 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. A party may not snap at an obviously mistaken offer: McMaster. 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. This cannot be right. They assert that spending only $105,996 to procure laser printers with an actual market value of $6,189,524 is wholly irrelevant; they are entitled to a good bargain. The second plaintiff made an enquiry as to the terms and conditions governing purchases through the HP website while the fifth plaintiff was perusing the conditions of the Digilandmall website. Case Note: Singapore | Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review Such errors can be magnified almost instantaneously and may be harder to detect than if made in a face to face transaction or through physical document exchanges. He was opportunistic in effecting his purchases, active in co-ordinating with the other plaintiffs on the eventful morning, and economical with the truth in his evidence. Normally, however, the task involves no more than an objective analysis of the words used by the parties. This final mass e-mail only reinforces my view that the first plaintiff consistently and continuously entertained the view that the price posting on the HP website was a mistake. There is constant tension in our legal system to accommodate the Janus-like considerations of fairness and finality. Although a mistaken party will not often be able to discharge the onus of showing that the other party knew or must have known that he or she intended terms different from the terms of the offer or acceptance, it is not a necessary element that the party seeking to enforce the contract has actively contributed to the others mistake. 116 The term snapping up was aptly coined by JamesLJ in Tamplin v James (1880) 15ChD 215 at 221. 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 elements of an offer and acceptance are, 139 Next, the defendant contends that no consideration passed from the plaintiffs to them. 47 Not content with making his own purchases, he woke up his brother and transacted 330 units on his behalf. 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. If the common law continues to take precedence, then an essential mistake would void a contract ab initio. Unilateral Mistake at Common Law and In Equity I must add that I did not really think this was necessary and subsequent events confirmed my perception. In these circumstances we can see no option but so to hold. Nor could he satisfactorily explain why he initially made the Internet searches to ensure the offer was genuine. Therefore, administrative law encompasses Is the Right to Privacy Adequately Protected? Landmark decision on unilateral mistake of fact in respect of the price of product listed on an online mall and the purchases made thereon . 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. Indeed, the time may have come for the common law to shed the pretence of searching for consideration to uphold commercial contracts. It presents a textbook example of offer and acceptance. This case is a paradigm example of an error on the human side. The first and fifth appellants each ordered a hundred printers, while the other appellants ordered more than a hundred printers each. Nor is it disputed that Samuel Teo, or any of the other employees of the defendant, was unaware at all material times of the dramatic chain of events so unwittingly initiated by the former. In Canada, the latter suffices. 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. High Court Suit No 202 of 2003. The case of Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3All ER 566 is incontrovertibly the leading authority in this area. 33 After his first order, the second plaintiff contacted the fourth and fifth plaintiffs informing them about the laser printers. 30th Sep 2021 The element of constructive knowledge based upon what a reasonable person ought to know is premised upon that person not being conscious of the error. (2d) Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall [2004 ] SGHC 71 A prospective purchaser is entitled to rely on the terms of the web advertisement. 66 The fifth plaintiff also gave evidence that the next morning, when he logged on his computer, he noted that a Hong Kong lawyer friend, Coral Toh, was also logged onto her computer. The sixth plaintiff told his brother to order some for him, without specifying how many laser printers he wanted or how he intended to pay for the laser printers. 13 The first plaintiff, Chwee Kin Keong, is 29 years old. The later the amendment, the greater the adverse consequences. Chwee Kin Keong and others v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd. [2004] SGHC 71. 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 graduated with an accounting degree from NTU. This is approved in a Singaporean case, Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd . June 16, 2022; Posted by why do chavs wear tracksuits; 16 . There was a promise to pay made by the plaintiffs in exchange for the delivery of the requisite laser printers. 48 The third plaintiff annexed to his affidavit the transcript of the Channel NewsAsia report where he was quoted. . 140 The defendant has however properly asserted that there was a unilateral mistake that vitiated all the contracts. 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. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! This view seems to suggest that principles of equity invariably provide an equally strong but more elastic second string to the bow. Plaintiffs counsel indicated that they wanted to further particularise the sixth plaintiffs purchase orders. Having ascertained the true market price, it would have appeared crystal clear, given the huge disparity in the pricing, that a manifest mistake had occurred. Desmond: 13/01/20 01:47 u make me greedy, Scorpio: 13/01/20 01:47 ok lor if you insist . A contract will not be concluded unless the parties are agreed as to its material terms. Kiat Boon, Daniel SENG - NUS Law Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532 Omnium D'Enterprises v . This e-mail was sent only after the first plaintiff had made his own Internet searches on the pricing of the laser printer. 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. A number of them have very close relationships, with some of them even sharing common business interests. His own counsels description of him as careful and prudent only serves to corroborate this. Rajah J.C. in the Singapore High Court in Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte. The plaintiffs and the defendant later reached an agreement to dispense with any further oral evidence, save for that of Tan Cheng Peng. 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 contract will not be concluded unless the parties are agreed as to its material terms. 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. They were high-end commercial laser printers. He somewhat muddied the authority of his observations by apparently accepting in Gallie v Lee [1969] 2 Ch 17 at 33 (affirmed on appeal in Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1971] AC 1004) that in Cundy v Lindsay there was no contract at all. "Unilateral Mistake in Contract: Five Degrees of Fusion of Common Law a That said, it also offers new avenues of evidential proof offering intimate insights into realtime thought processes and reactions. The law will have to organically adapt itself to respond to new challenges without compromising on certainty and fairness. He is currently a supervisor in the taxation department of an international accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche, specialising in corporate taxation services. 3 All six plaintiffs are graduates, conversant with the usage of the Internet and its practices and endowed with more than an adequate understanding of business and commercial practices. 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. 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. chwee kin keong v digilandmall high court. Similar works. Promotions would be indicated by a P inside a yellow circle next to the product in question. 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. Alternatively, knowledge may be readily inferred from what would be regarded as commonly known or notorious facts in the context of the transaction.